Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Bus Fuel

Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he intends to take to encourage operators of buses to switch to cleaner fuels. [30587]

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): The Department is collaborating with bus and haulage operators and with other organisations on a series of trials of alternative fuels to provide Government and operators with a sound basis for assessing the relative merits of those fuels.
Meanwhile, to encourage operators to consider converting their vehicles to use road fuel gases, the duty on those fuels was reduced by 15 per cent. in the most recent Budget, with an increase to 100 per cent. in the amount of duty rebated to bus operators. The Chancellor also announced that he would examine the scope for using vehicle excise duty as a further instrument for encouraging low emission vehicles.

Mr. Jamieson: Does the Minister realise the very considerable environmental advantage in buses using compressed natural gas? When the Secretary of State for Transport launched Green Transport Week on Friday, in Leeds, what measures did he propose to give incentives to bus companies such as Southampton City Buses, which has made a considerable contribution to air quality in Leeds by operating 10 per cent. of its fleet with compressed natural gas? What incentives will he give to help bus companies first to convert and, secondly, to set up compression stations so that they can use gas?

Mr. Norris: As parliamentary consultant to the Natural Gas Vehicle Association, the hon. Gentleman will know that the recent changes in duty rates have provided a considerable incentive to operators, particularly public transport operators and municipal vehicle operators, to convert their fleets. They realise the environmental advantages on offer and now find themselves in a much more sympathetic tax environment.
In terms of reverse incentives, there will be much more concentration on roadside emissions tests. There will be more of that blitzing work during the middle of this year, emphasising a clear commitment to trying to improve the quality of vehicle emissions, particularly in public service and heavy goods vehicles.

Mr. Congdon: I very much welcome any moves towards cleaner fuel, particularly in buses, and the comments made by my hon. Friend the Minister about greater efforts in enforcing emissions standards. I am sure that he will have noted when travelling around London that most of the worst pollution that one experiences comes from buses. Will he assure the House that tougher measures will be taken against bus operators who fail properly to maintain their vehicles?

Mr. Norris: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. All buses from London bus companies that tender to London Transport Buses are checked very regularly. However, my hon. Friend will know that it needs only one injector to be slightly out of tune to


produce an awful lot of emissions. The important thing is that that type of mistuning is corrected at an early opportunity. The accent in the work of London Transport Buses and, generally, by outside private bus operators is on producing cleaner emissions and better quality air.

Mr. Allen: Will the Minister take this opportunity to welcome Green Transport Week? Will he also concede that a state of the art clean and green bus can cost almost £100,000? Will he admit that it is less likely that bus operators will invest in such vehicles if a charabanc belching black smoke can intercept their route, arrive perhaps one minute ahead and undercut them in price? Will the Government introduce proposals to ensure stability in the industry, particularly by ending on-the-road competition? There will be plenty of legislative time, come October, so will he introduce those proposals? If he does, he will have the support of Opposition Members.

Mr. Norris: That proposal should worry the Opposition because it is very silly. As it happens, I am keen to endorse Green Transport Week. It is an excellent initiative and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State attended the launch. Hon. Members on both sides were delighted that it was so well received.
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to suggest that there is little incentive for an operator to invest £100,000 in a Euro 2 clean engine if that operator faces competition from an operator paying a fraction of the price for a vehicle. But the solution, with the greatest respect, does not lie in seeking to re-regulate the whole industry. That would be an appalling way to take transport policy forward and would mean the loss of many of the benefits that millions of customers now enjoy from services that are there to address the needs of passengers.
What is needed is work on the bus quality partnerships, of which the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are aware and which have the support both of bus operators and local authorities and local authority associations. By lifting the quality threshold in the bus industry in that way, we can achieve what the hon. Gentleman and I very much want.

Cycle Lanes (London)

Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will assess the impact on traffic congestion in London of doubling the number of cycle lanes. [30602]

Mr. Norris: The Government are committed to funding a range of measures, including cycle lanes, to help cyclists in London through the London cycle network. Their impact will be monitored as the network is implemented.

Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. I am also grateful to him and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for their great support for National Bike Week last week. I am delighted to hear of the support that they are giving to Green Transport Week this week. Does my hon. Friend agree that as we move the debate along in terms of aiming for less fumes and more green transport it is important to encourage local authorities—along with the cycle-friendly infrastructure, another

initiative that my hon. Friend has launched—not just to mouth platitudes, but to proceed in the debate and to get more people on to their bicycles and out of their cars?

Mr. Norris: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As a late and unlikely convert to the bicycle, I am convinced that it has a major role to play—[Interruption.] I think that Opposition Members have envisaged me in lycra and have decided that that is a matter of some amusement, and they are entirely right. As an unlikely convert—unlikely converts are among the worst zealots—I am absolutely convinced that we should be cycling as much as all our European counterparts. When those who do not pay much interest to these matters say, "Well, Holland is flat and that is why they cycle," they perhaps forget Switzerland which, whatever one thinks of it, is not flat and where people cycle about five times more than they do in this country. That is a big challenge for us. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who leads the all-party cycle group, has been such an enthusiastic endorser of our policy.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that one of the views of cycling converts, both old and new, and of those who use cycles regularly is that the appointment of a cycling officer for each London borough, as we have in the London borough of Newham, is a means of getting suggestions from the public which meet the needs of short-distance journeys? Can the Minister give figures to show that in London most motor car journeys are relatively short? I think that he will agree that a third or a half of those journeys are capable of being achieved by cycle.

Mr. Norris: There is no older convert in this place than the hon. Gentleman, and I pay tribute to him because I have no doubt that the reason why he is as fit as he looks today is that he cycles so much and that the reason why I look so unfit is that I cycle so little. That is a great tribute to the hon. Gentleman, and long may he continue.
Clearly, it is up to local authorities to determine how they take forward cycling initiatives. However, they should concentrate on the fact—this is the key to the whole issue—that about half the journeys we do, especially in cities, are less than two miles in length. Nobody is suggesting that we want to start cycling from London to Brighton as a daily exercise, although I understand that 23,000 souls will do that shortly as part of the London to Brighton cycle run. Personally, I am content to confine my cycling to two or three miles and no more, and when it is comfortable rather than when it is snowing. However, each time people leave the car at home and do what can be very enjoyable, they are making a small contribution towards a safer and cleaner environment.

Mr. Jessel: I am not a convert, but perhaps I may ask my hon. Friend what is the use of local authorities such as Richmond upon Thames putting down more cycling tracks and then allowing people to park their cars on them so that they cannot be used. It is also very alarming to many of my constituents and to those of other hon. Members when people come whizzing up noiselessly behind them on bicycles. People feel that that is dangerous. What has happened to the good old-fashioned bicycle bell?

Mr. Norris: We have the makings of new campaign there: defenders of the bicycle bell. The great thing about bicycle bells is that if one has one fitted one may as well use it. That is probably the most effective use for it, and would probably deal with the circumstances that my hon. Friend has outlined. There is much joy in heaven for every sinner who repenteth, and I am sure that people in his part of the world in Richmond and Twickenham would be delighted if some day he chooses to join them on two wheels rather than four.

Mr. Rendel: Does the Minister accept that bus lanes in the wrong places and at the wrong times can sometimes increase congestion, as the remaining non-cycle transport is forced into a smaller space? The building of bypasses might free up some road space and provide an unprecedented opportunity to introduce cycle lanes which, I hope that he will accept, all those who are in favour of cycling would be wise to support.

Mr. Norris: I wondered why the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) was on his own, but then I realised that it was because he was a Liberal defending a bypass. We are all delighted to see him, and delighted at his solid support. I am sorry that he will be able to give it to us only for another year. He makes a serious point about cycle lanes and their enforcement and policing. He is absolutely right that there is no point in drawing either cycling lanes or bus priority lanes on the road if they are promptly ignored by motorists. They need to be enforced, and that is a challenge for local authorities. To some degree, the extent to which those lanes constrict private car traffic is an important component in persuading motorists that there is a greener alternative and a more efficient way to make their journey. So I do not entirely consider the reduction in available road space a disadvantage.

Public Transport

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to enlarge the network and improve the efficiency of public transport. [30603]

The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): The Government are seeking to increase private sector involvement in the funding and operation of public transport, which we believe will provide the modern, efficient systems that this country needs.

Mr. Hughes: How much money will be saved as a result of the slashing of the roads programme? And how much, if any, of the money saved will be spent on new and improved forms of public transport? Or is the whole exercise merely a device to try to appease the green lobby and to store up money for tax handouts in the run-up to the next election?

Sir George Young: The Government set out their priorities clearly in the previous public expenditure round. Against a background of the need to contain public expenditure, we safeguarded investment in public transport and took the reduction in the publicly funded road programme. However, as a result of our commitment to the private finance initiative, we were able to carry forward about £1 billion worth of roads through the

design, build, finance and operate scheme to make progress with necessary investment in the road infrastructure.

Mr. Sims: Does my right hon. Friend agree that anybody who travels on one of the newly privatised train systems, as I had occasion to recently, is immediately aware of the improved reliability and increased efficiency of such services? Will he give an assurance that I and many of my constituents who commute daily on South Eastern trains to London will be able to enjoy the benefits of privatisation before too long?

Sir George Young: As my hon. Friend knows, we are making good progress with the franchising of South Eastern trains. He and his constituents will be pleased to know that, as a condition of awarding the franchise, the bidders will have to renew the rolling stock. That is a good example of the benefits of privatisation—once the investment programmes take place outside the constraints of the public sector borrowing requirement, one can meet needs such as those of my hon. Friend's constituents without exerting any upward pressure on the PSBR.

Ms Short: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the fact that in the recent Green Paper the Government have understood that to deal with the growing problems of congestion and pollution it is essential to enhance the quality and reliability of public transport and to persuade people to use their cars more selectively. The House will welcome the fact that the Government have seen the error of their ways. As the Minister for Transport in London said, it is always good when a sinner repents. Will he apologise to the country for 17 wasted years, during which the Government exacerbated congestion and pollution problems by planning and then cancelling a massive roads programme and by their prejudice and hostility to public transport? Will he apologise for the damage that deregulation and privatisation have done? Does he agree that for there to be true repentance, there must be an expression of real remorse?

Sir George Young: The Government have nothing to apologise for, and therefore no remorse. We have published a clear transport strategy for the future. In particular, we have a clear vision of a modernised railway and we have identified the sources of finance for that modernisation. The hon. Lady and her party have totally failed to come up with a vision of the railway for the year 2000 and beyond, or any sources of finance. With some humility, I must tell her that it is she and not I who should apologise.

Road Tolls

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received urging the introduction of road tolls at the entrance to cities. [30604]

Mr. Norris: In response to representations from the local authority associations, we set out in the transport Green Paper our intention to discuss with them the case for taking the legislative powers necessary to enable interested local authorities to implement experimental charging schemes.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that he does not intend to introduce road tolls into London? My constituents in Sutton and Cheam would be alarmed if their freedom of movement were hindered. Road tolling would penalise the elderly, the infirm, the disabled and those less able to pay. In short, it would be a tremendously unfair city tax.

Mr. Norris: There is currently no technology available that would allow such a system to be introduced, whether it was required or not, and I doubt whether such technology will be available for at least 10 years. More importantly, while recognising the various academic arguments in favour of charging systems, the Government have been alive to precisely the issues that my hon. Friend raises. Huge social and economic issues are raised by urban congestion pricing, not least its impact on marginal car users—those people who need a car to access a job, whatever the quality of public transport. It would be a tragedy if a result of such a policy were to put those people out of their jobs. It is interesting that both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have bought the urban congestion charging proposition uncritically and are intent on introducing it in London and elsewhere. The Government are rightly more sanguine and cautious.

Mr. Dalyell: Before anyone says anything more about road tolls, will they come to my constituency between 7 am and 9 am and between 4 pm and 6 pm to see tolls in operation on the Forth road bridge? These are, in effect, tolls for entering the city of Edinburgh, and congestion is caused to the extent that people are talking about a second bridge, although that is completely unnecessary. If these tolls—for a bridge that has been paid for—were done away with, congestion would be much alleviated.

Mr. Norris: The congestion is not caused by the tolls, but by the fact that people have to stop before they cross the Forth road bridge and pay the toll at a toll gate. Modern tolling systems abolish the need for toll gates, as the tolling is done automatically by reference to a smart card in the vehicle. Such a system is up and running and available to regular motorists in Dartford. One of the propositions at the forefront of the technology trials on tolling systems generally has been the idea that we could not possibly afford to introduce toll booths on every access road to every city. It would be wholly impractical. The proposition that the hon. Gentleman quite understandably puts forward is not at odds with the concept of tolling; it illustrates vividly and graphically that there should not be physical toll booths at which vehicles have to stop. That is the way in which technology is moving and it will not be many years before it is taken for granted.

Sir Donald Thompson: I thank my hon. Friend for his cautious approach. May I remind him that market towns are not cities and often need people to come by car to shop and then to go away? If people cannot do that, they will use out-of-town shopping centres where parking is free.

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend is entirely right. That would be a counter-productive response. In any event, it would overlook the fact that local authorities can take a great many measures to alleviate town centre congestion—such as bus priorities, traffic calming, park

and ride, and cycle improvements, all of which can produce the result that my hon. Friend would want for his towns and villages without the expensive infrastructure and the real difficulties to which he has just referred.

Trans-European Transport Networks

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to ensure that environmental considerations are included in the guidelines for the trans-European transport networks. [30605]

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): The common position on the guidelines adopted by the Council of Ministers in September 1995 identified
the integration of the environmental concerns into the design and development of the network
as a priority. I fully expect the final agreed text to contain those or similar provisions.

Mr. Hain: That may appear to be an encouraging answer, but may I press the Minister more forcefully to ensure that the Government fulfil their international obligations to sustainable development and that strong environmental protection measures are included in the guidelines for each trans-European network, such as a strategic environmental assessment or a corridor analysis for each scheme? In addition, because the Council meets in secret, it is quite possible for it to thwart the pressure from the European Parliament under the co-decision procedure for that environmental protection and for the Government not to own up to that. I hope that the Minister will press for those environmental protection measures at that meeting.

Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman misses the point that existing legislation requires rigorous environmental assessment for any transport infrastructure project. Hon. Members will have seen the extent of that assessment in the channel tunnel rail link project, for example. Schemes on a trans-European network comprise individual schemes and, if they are cross-border, individual member states, all of which are subjected to rigorous environmental assessment under existing legislation.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Bearing in mind people's entitlement to a reasonable environment, as set out in the report, does my hon. Friend agree that the Transport Select Committee report advocating that Northolt airport become a satellite of Heathrow would be totally unacceptable to the people of Northolt, Ealing and the surrounding area and would destroy their lives, given their proximity to Heathrow airport? Will he give an assurance that it will be thrown out, as it should be?

Mr. Watts: The Department has only recently received the report from the Select Committee, which is being given careful consideration. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be replying to the report in due course in the normal way.

Railtrack Sale

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the sale of Railtrack. [30606]

Sir George Young: The Government's offers of Railtrack shares were successfully completed on 20 May, when dealings started on the London stock exchange. The share offer was highly successful and secured gross proceeds of some £1.93 billion.

Mr. Bayley: Does the Secretary of State recall the Government's pledge to the House that rail privatisation would improve the quality and frequency of services? Has he seen the franchising director's draft passenger service requirement for InterCity cross-country trains, which would allow a private operator to cut the number of trains from York to the south-west from 11 a day to three a day? Unlike the east coast services, those trains are highly subsidised and, without a requirement, they are likely to be axed. As 700,000 tourists a year arrive in York by train, will he guarantee that services to York from the south-west will be protected if privatisation proceeds?

Sir George Young: In view of the hon. Gentleman' s knowledge of the industry, I am surprised that he makes the elementary mistake of confusing passenger service requirements with the services ultimately provided by those who win the bids. I invite him to look at the successful franchise for the midland main line, under which 22 extra services per day, over and above those now provided, will be offered from St. Pancras to Leicester. That offers the assurance that the hon. Gentleman wants.

Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the privatisation of Railtrack has offered us the best possible chance to have the west coast main line upgraded? Does he further agree that any restrictions imposed upon Railtrack, as suggested by the Labour party, would delay or even stop that much-needed improvement to infrastructure in the north-west?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend will know that about £1 billion will be invested by Railtrack in the modernisation of the west coast main line. I regard that as one of the most important current projects for Railtrack. My hon. Friend will also know that two initial signalling contracts have been awarded. Further contracts will follow this year, with work on the substantial contract beginning in 1997.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Has the Secretary of State noted that Railtrack, which will take more than a year to put in place safety requirements at Euston station which are essential to the running of the west coast main line, has nevertheless immediately managed to put on the market the air above Victoria station to any property developer who wants to buy it? It has done so because its priorities always have been, will be and are absolutely plain—to put property first and safety second?

Sir George Young: Railtrack has been allowed a year by the Health and Safety Executive to do the work at Euston station, and I hope that it will be completed before

that year is up. As to the hon. Lady's second point, I thought that it was agreed by those on both sides of the House that it makes sense to focus new office developments at major transport interchanges so as to minimise the use of cars and maximise the use of rail and buses. I am amazed at the outburst that we have just heard from the hon. Lady.

Ms Short: Does the Secretary of State agree that to meet the future transport needs of Britain we must have more investment in rail so as to increase the number of passengers on it and the amount of freight that is moved by it? Now that the flotation has happened, may I ask the Secretary of State to be honest about the likely consequences of privatisation? Is it not true that the £10 billion to be invested over 10 years is no greater than the level of investment that we had historically under British Rail and that that investment is inadequate to achieve the rail network that we need? Will he also admit to the House that the prospectus says—so it must be true because it is legally binding—that there is no expectation of any significant growth in passenger or freight use of rail under the privatisation arrangements? They are therefore deeply damaging to the national interest.

Sir George Young: On the hon. Lady's first point, the investment figures are £8 billion over five years, which in my view is a higher level of investment than would have been afforded had the railways remained in the public sector. The hon. Lady needs to explain how she would find £8 billion if we pursued her policies to put Railtrack back in the public sector. Would she put up the fares? Would she put up taxes? Would she cut services? Would she take money out of the health service to find that money?
As for growth in passenger or freight traffic, when I went to the handing over of Freightliner I was encouraged to hear from the management buy-out team that it hoped to increase its traffic by 50 per cent. in the next few years. That is a measure of confidence. Wisconsin plans to buy 250 more locomotives. That sounds to me as though it has some confidence in traffic growth in the private sector.

Cycling

Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage the use of bicycles. [30607]

Mr. Norris: We have taken a number of initiatives designed to give people confidence to cycle more. We have asked local authorities to look at how they can contribute to a national target of doubling the level of cycling by the year 2002. The national cycling strategy to be launched on 10 July will set out common objectives and a range of actions to achieve the target.

Mr. MacShane: Is the Minister aware that one of the most important cycling routes in London is Parliament square and the approach roads to Parliament? Those of us who want to arrive at our place of work with our trousers tucked into our socks find it incredibly dangerous to do so. I was knocked off opposite St. Stephen's entrance. Can the Minister use his muscle—for the last time before he retires to sell


second-hand bikes in his new career—to have a word with his friends at Westminster city council to introduce cycling lanes in Parliament square and on the approach roads to Parliament?

Mr. Norris: I am sorry to hear of the hon. Gentleman's unfortunate experience of being knocked off in Parliament square—although that may not come as a surprise to Government Members. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of Westminster city council because those roads are its responsibility. We must give people a safe place to cycle if we are to give them the confidence to cycle. A great deal of the basic groundwork will go into those elementary safety measures to help us to achieve the national target. The measures will enable people who are too scared to cycle—particularly in large cities such as London—to cycle.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to encourage businesses to promote cycling by their employees. [30608]

Mr. Norris: My Department, along with most other Whitehall Departments and some local authorities, provides a range of facilities to help staff who wish to cycle to work. These include secure parking, showers, changing facilities and assistance with bicycle purchase. Obviously, the decision to provide such facilities is a matter for individual employers, but I hope that the Government's lead will result in similar facilities in the private sector.

Mrs. Campbell: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the World Conservation Monitoring Centre—which is in Cambridge—which has managed to persuade 40 per cent. of its employees to cycle to work? Will he also congratulate Cambridge Econometrics, which has an almost 100 per cent. cycling work force? In fact, it has changed its car park into a garden. That should be a great encouragement to other employees who could cycle to work.

Mr. Norris: I warmly endorse what the hon. Lady has said. It is marvellous to hear of that sort of initiative being taken. It underlines the concept of the green commuter plan which, for example, cities such as Nottingham have introduced. The accent is on allowing the company that provides a more environmentally friendly and efficient way for its employees to travel to work to use its car park for whatever purpose it regards desirable, such as a garden. That sort of scheme means that this is not simply a pro bono contribution by a company; it is a perfectly cost-effective way of improving the environment and the health of the employees. It is also beneficial to the company's accounts.

Bus Deregulation

Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of bus deregulation outside London; and if he will make a statement. [30609]

Mr. Norris: Bus deregulation continues to be a success, with more operators running more bus miles at lower cost and with significantly less public subsidy than

previously. There are also encouraging signs that the long-term decline in bus patronage is beginning to flatten out.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister realise that my constituents were able to enjoy good public transport on bank holidays for well over 100 years—since bank holidays were introduced—and to get to the many events that are organised on such occasions? Can he imagine their horror when the bus operators that supply many of the routes in Denton West under the deregulated bus service chose not to put on any services over Easter and the spring bank holiday?

Mr. Norris: What the operators do is a matter for them. However, on the face of it, that seems to be an extraordinary decision. The operators might like to take note of the fact that there is a large untapped market on a bank holiday. To suggest that deregulation results in fewer services is absurd. There are currently 29 per cent. more bus miles being run outside London because private and deregulated operators are going to where people want to be taken from and taking them where they want to go. That is the key advantage.
I cannot think of a single action that would damage the bus network in this country more than to do what, by implication, the hon. Gentleman and his fellow travellers want—that is, to re-regulate an industry that has at last managed to break free from the appalling bureaucratic stranglehold under which it languished for several decades.

Railtrack Sale

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many individuals were successful in their application to buy Railtrack shares. [30610]

Sir George Young: Some 650,000 applications from individuals were successful in the Railtrack share offer.

Mr. Jones: The Minister has not told us that 10 per cent. of the shareholders sold their shares within one day of the announcement, at an average profit of £100 per person for taking no risk and making no effort. Is that not an example of what a rip-off the privatisation process has been?

Sir George Young: Certainly not. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that 9,000 employees of Railtrack bought shares in their company. If the Labour party believes in a stakeholder society, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that we have given Railtrack employees the opportunity, for the first time, to have a stake in their industry's success.

National Transport Network

Mr. Pope: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his assessment of the state of the nation's transport network; and if he will make a statement. [30611]

Sir George Young: The nation's transport networks have improved significantly as a result of public and private investment over the past 17 years, and will continue to benefit from the policies outlined in the Green Paper "Transport: The Way Forward".

Mr. Pope: That is the answer of someone who does not travel regularly between London and the north-west of England. Does the Secretary of State accept that both road and rail links between London and the north-west are inadequate? Will he give an assurance that the franchise for the InterCity west coast main line will include a specification to upgrade the line so that it can take high-speed trains, which will cut the journey time between Manchester and London to two hours?

Sir George Young: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the core modernisation programme includes the introduction of a modern train signalling and control system, improved power supply and track renewal, which will bring improved reliability and some increase in capacity to the west coast main line route. An upgrade will depend on negotiations between Opraf and those who are interested in bidding for the franchise.

Sir Alan Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, when considering extensions of the rail network, people can often be as opposed to such developments on environmental grounds as they are to extensions of the road network? Is it not significant that, in her two trips to the Dispatch Box this afternoon, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) was unable to make any commitment about funds that a Labour Government, were there to be one, might use to extend the rail network? Is it not more sensible to ensure more effective use of the existing rail network as a precursor to its extension?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend poses, in his eloquent way, the key questions that everyone wants to know about Labour's transport policy: first, what is it and, secondly, how will it pay for it?

Mr. Martlew: Let us return to the west coast main line. Is the Minister happy that the Opraf director has said that it will take 12 years to upgrade the west coast main line and it will be seven years before there is any new rolling stock on that line? Can the Minister remember the Chancellor's 1993 Budget, which provided money to upgrade the west coast main line? Why has not that money been spent?

Sir George Young: As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) earlier, Railtrack is moving forward with a substantial £1 billion core modernisation programme on the west coast main line. It has awarded two parallel contracts for the signalling and control systems and will begin the main contract letting in 1996; it is estimated that work will start early in 1997. What we all want to know from Opposition Members is how they will find the resources for the contract if it is not funded by the private sector, to which they are opposed.

Road Tolls

Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce toll roads. [30613]

Mr. Watts: Our policy remains as set out by the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), in December 1993. The assessment of available technology and systems will provide the basis on which to decide when to go ahead with motorway charging and, at an appropriate time, we will introduce the necessary legislation for Parliament to consider.

Mr. Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that toll roads offer the opportunity of increased private investment in roads, particularly for bypassing large cities? Does he accept that there is still a demand, notwithstanding the green lobby, for towns and cities to be bypassed? Given that the Treasury may not always be forthcoming with the necessary funds, does my hon. Friend agree that toll roads offer the opportunity of taking traffic out of our towns and cities?

Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that there is a continuing demand for bypasses to relieve towns and villages. Privately promoted toll roads, for which there is already legislative provision, may be one of the ways of meeting that demand.

Ms Hodge: Will the Minister confirm that the A 13 through my constituency will be a shadow toll road to enable the upgrading of that road to take place?

Mr. Watts: There are several schemes on the A13, some of which will be taken forward as part of a proposed design, build, finance and operate scheme and others that will be part of a conventionally funded programme. All the schemes relating to the A 13 remain in the main road programme.

Motorway Service Stations

Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the refreshment facilities provided at motorway service stations. [30614]

Mr. Watts: None.

Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Minister accept that deregulation has meant that more motorway service stations have been given the go-ahead to rip people off, that most food is overpriced and disgusting and that a price of £1 for a cup of tea is scandalous? What will he do to ensure good value for money?

Mr. Watts: The effects of deregulation and the promotion of new motorway service areas by the private sector mean that more are being provided. Three have been provided since deregulation and 11 planning permissions are outstanding. That will mean more competition and, therefore, more choice for motorists. Because motorway service area operators are required to provide free access to toilets, rest areas, picnic areas and parking for members of the public, those who choose to take food and drink with them can make use of the areas without paying the prices that the hon. Lady finds unacceptable.

Mr. Ashby: When will my hon. Friend introduce rest areas on motorways, as they have on the continent, where drivers who are a little tired can stop for a few moments? Those areas are a great safety feature on the continent and they are not expensive to provide. Why do we not have them?

Mr. Watts: As I have just explained in reply to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), motorway service operators are required to provide such facilities for all motorists free of charge. It is better for supervised areas to be provided on the trunk road and motorway network than to make unsupervised provision which, in view of experience elsewhere, might suffer vandalism and other such problems.

Car Design (Pedestrian Safety)

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's policy concerning car design and pedestrian safety; and if he will make a statement. [30617]

Mr. Norris: The Department strongly supports improvements to car design which reduce the numbers of pedestrians killed or injured in road accidents.

Mr. Barnes: What will be done to get rid of the obscene practice of placing bull bars on cars and vans? Will our Government or the European Union take action? If it is the European Union, the Government need to make it clear that they will not block action under qualified majority voting and that they will not try to form a blocking minority. Is the issue being moved between the Government and the European Union so that nothing gets done?

Mr. Norris: No. We are clear that aggressive bull bars are unnecessary and unacceptable and a potential cause of serious accidents. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's sensible question is that we need to have powers in domestic legislation—those have existed since the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use Regulations) Act 1986—to bring about the necessary changes, but if those powers are to be effective, they have to fall within the scope of the appropriate European directive. The external projections directive can be amended and the Commission has produced a form of words, which we are contemplating. I hope that we shall be able to reach agreement shortly. Once that has happened, it will go a long way to enabling us to get rid of aggressive bull bars. In due course, the draft policy for a directive on pedestrian protection will offer us a final and complete solution, but, in the meanwhile, a perfectly adequate form of words is available under the external projections directive.

Transport Links (East Sussex)

Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to improve transport links in East Sussex. [30621]

Mr. Watts: We recognise the case for improving transport links to and along the south coast. Our trunk road programme contains a number of important schemes in East Sussex. We are also supporting improvements to the county council's local road network.

Mr. Waterson: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware of the level of support in my constituency for sensible, necessary and environmentally sensitive schemes, such as the A22 Polegate bypass and the A27? In addition, I assure him that many rail travellers in my constituency are looking forward not only to the benefits of the Thameslink 2000 rail link to Eastbourne, but to the tangible benefits of rail privatisation in our area.

Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend has been extremely eloquent on other occasions in expressing his support and that of his constituents for sensible road improvements and for the tremendous benefits that rail privatisation will bring to rail passengers and freight users.

Rail Privatisation

Mr. Faulds: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his assessment of the success of the rail sell-off; and if he will make a statement. [30622]

Sir George Young: The team had a good result.

Mr. Winnick: He was held up on the journey.

Mr. Faulds: Well, for once, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is absolutely right—I am delighted that I am here in time because I was held up. Is the Secretary of State aware that I was held up by British Rail in getting here this afternoon? Is he aware that I waited at Euston station last Thursday to return home to Stratford-upon-Avon by way of Coventry and that there was a 55-minute delay—yet another of the Euston break-ups because of the points system outside Euston? How can he possibly claim that any price paid for those decaying services can be worth it for the suffering of the British people?

Sir George Young: With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman has missed the main point. The key question is: which regime will provide the resources that are necessary to improve the quality of service and the reliability of the trains on which he travels? It is our very strong contention that the regime that we have introduced will ensure that in a few years the hon. Gentleman will not be detained in the way that he was today.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents are very encouraged by the rail sell-off and rail franchising? We are looking forward to seeing SouthEastern trains moving rapidly into the private sector, particularly in view of my right hon. Friend's requirement that the provision of new carriages on the Kent coast line through the stations of Meopham and Sole Street in my constituency be a part of the franchise.

Sir George Young: I am sure that many organisations are looking forward to the results of franchising. I hope that the existing trade unions that invested in nationalised industries when we privatised them will also invest in Railtrack in due course.

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on the costs of privatisation of the railways. [30624]

Mr. Watts: By the end of 1995–96, total Government privatisation costs are estimated to be some £145 million and some £325 million for British Rail and Railtrack, including some investment in assets or asset management systems. Those costs should be viewed in the context of proceeds in excess of £4 billion and of substantial benefits to rail users as a result of privatisation.

Mr. Skinner: What has the privatisation of the railway system to do with market forces? As I understand it, the Government have always believed that the market forces philosophy would rule. Yet, through the dogma of privatisation, the Government have decided to privatise the railways while calling upon the taxpayer to find about £850 million per year to allow that privatisation to continue. I remind the Minister that one argument is still prevalent in the Labour movement: a Labour Government's best answer would be to take the network back into public ownership without any compensation.

Mr. Watts: I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) has heard her hon. Friend's comments about the policy of any future Labour Government. The fact is that, with seven franchises operating in the private sector, the costs to the taxpayer in the seventh year of those franchises will be less than a third of the grant paid to British Rail to operate those services in the past year. In the hon. Gentleman's area, the competitive bidding process for the midland main line franchise has ensured a winning bid that will require no subsidy from the taxpayer at the end of the franchise period. A completely new fleet of trains will be purchased in order to increase service frequency to Loughborough, Derby and Nottingham. They are the facts.

Private Finance Initiative (Road Building)

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the level of tolls to be charged for the use of roads built under the private finance initiative. [30625]

Mr. Watts: Estimated expenditure on shadow tolls for design, build, finance and operate road schemes is published in the transport report 1996.

Mr. O'Brien: What advice can the Minister give to my constituents on the proposed link between the M1 and A1 in the Rothwell area of Leeds, when shadow tolls will be paid by the Government out of taxpayers' money? Has he any information as to what will be the estimated charges?

Mr. Watts: Not specifically on that route, but the figures set out in the report are £41 million in 1996–97, £97 million in 1997–98 and £123 million in 1998–99.

Chiltern Line

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the future of the Chiltern line. [30626]

Mr. Watts: The franchising director has today announced that M40 Trains Ltd., the management buy-out team, has been selected as preferred bidder for the Chiltern Railway Co. Ltd. franchise.

Mr. Lidington: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement and draw his attention to comments made to me by the managing director of M40 Trains Ltd., who is responsible for operations in Chiltern, that the approach of privatisation had, for the first time, forced railway managers to concentrate their minds on what their passengers actually wanted in the way of a service? Is not that the key message of the advantages of privatisation for fare-paying passengers: the service will be provided ever more in their interests?

Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The total focus of passenger train operating companies is on increasing their business by providing better services for their passengers.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

Parliamentary Questions

Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will introduce a supervisory body to assess independently the efficacy of parliamentary procedures relating to the answering of questions. [30632]

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have no plans to do so. The efficacy of our procedures falls within the remit of the Procedure Committee.

Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister agree with Sir Richard Scott's suggestion, made a few weeks ago in the annual Blackstone lecture, that a parliamentary watchdog is necessary to ensure that Ministers answer Members of Parliament's questions, which Sir Richard Scott still believes they are not doing on a wide range of questions, including those on arms sales? Is it not time that, if Ministers are not prepared to give answers, someone else ensures that they do?

Mr. Newton: I am aware that a suggestion, I think somewhat similar to that to which the hon. Lady refers, has been made in evidence to the Select Committee on Public Service, but, as someone who would count himself a parliamentarian, I would be wary of any proposal that cuts across what should be, and is, the central line of Ministers' accountability in the House.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I agree profoundly with my right hon. Friend. Ministers are accountable. We do not want any outsider coming in and telling them how they should behave. Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of my constituents come to Question Time, and that they all find it absolutely enthralling and go away with considerably more enthusiasm for the House of Commons?

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her doughty support. I always find her contributions enthralling.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Do you mean that?

Mr. Newton: Of course I do.

Summer Recess

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will introduce proposals to shorten the summer recess. [30633]

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received concerning the length of parliamentary recesses; and if he will make a statement. [30635]

Mr. Newton: I cannot yet give the House the proposed dates for the summer Adjournment, but I have no plans to make any radical departure from recent practice.

Mr. Winnick: That is unfortunate. What possible justification is there for having a three-month recess, which will commence shortly? Surely in this day and age, the summer recess should be much shorter, bearing it in mind that the House of Commons is already on a short-term week and that, often, voting takes place only on two days out of the five?

Mr. Newton: The point is that Members of Parliament have a wide range of duties other than attendance in the House and that this Parliament already sits longer than that of, I think, any other major western democracy. The balance between our sitting and our non-sitting days is about right.

Mr. Barnes: Some people think that Members of Parliament are a waste of time, and perhaps one or two are, but are we not all a waste of time if we do not have a Parliament? If a Parliament is not sitting for three months or more, and no formal avenues are available for the asking of questions and the probing of the Executive, what is the point of having an elected Parliament? Can we not spread the parliamentary year so that the breaks are shorter and therefore do not matter so much?

Mr. Newton: I am aware that suggestions such as that have been made from time to time. Let me point out, however, that it is not very long since the House received,

and subsequently debated and made decisions on, a report from a Select Committee of the House which examined all those matters carefully and made no such suggestion.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is not the House unique, in that we have constituency responsibilities? Do not most Members of Parliament spend the recesses at work in their constituencies, getting very close to their constituents? Perhaps those two questions are a reflection on the two hon. Members concerned.

Mr. Newton: Different Members of Parliament observably have different ways of going about the job. My hon. Friend is certainly assiduous in the interests of his constituents, and I am sure that he will continue to be so on whatever occasions the House is sitting.

Mr. Barry Porter: May I take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) back to the House following his recent illness? I am delighted to see him. Having said that, however, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House agrees that the country is infinitely better governed when we are not sitting? It has always struck me that that is so.

Mr. Newton: I hesitate to agree with that proposition, but I note that it is my hon. Friend's view.

Mrs. Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have noted that, in replying to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), the Minister for Transport in London chose to mention his official consultancy. I am not in any way opposed to that, but I wonder whether that same Minister approached you in an attempt to extend Transport questions by at least another hour. If we are to mention all the consultancies held by Conservative Members, we shall require at least as long as that before any questions are answered.

Madam Speaker: That being the case, perhaps we should not rise for the summer recess until the end of September.

Orders of the Day — Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 5

REGULATION OF COMMUNITY CARE SERVICES PROVIDED BY MEANS OF DIRECT PAYMENTS

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, after consulting such persons as appear to him to have relevant knowledge or experience, by order introduce a scheme for the regulation of the provision of community care services under this Act with particular reference to the purchase by persons to whom payments are made under section 1 or section 4 of independent domiciliary care.

(2) A scheme under subsection (1) may include powers—

(a) to require the registration of persons providing domiciliary care to persons in receipt of payments under section (1) or section (4)
(b) to establish a system of inspection for the purposes of ensuring that the terms on which a person is registered under paragraph (a) above have been complied with.

(3) An order under subsection (I) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Hinchliffe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 11—Regulation of services provided by persons not classed as individuals—

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, after consulting such persons as appear to him to have relevant knowledge or experience, by order introduce a scheme for the regulation of the provision of community care services under this Act, with particular regard to the purchase by a person to whom payments are made under section 1 or section 4 of independent domiciliary care from a person who is not classed as an individual for the purposes of any enactment relating to community care.

(2) An order under subsection (1) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.

Mr. Hinchliffe: New clause 5 is intended to safeguard the welfare of those who will obtain various community care services through the direct payment provisions in the Bill. Clearly, they include some very intimate services. Direct payments will enable people to pay for bathing, washing, dressing, cleaning and a range of other services, including, in certain instances, the handling of a person's money by the carer.
We should ensure that the quality of such care is properly regulated and inspected. New clause 5 provides for the regulation of domiciliary care: those providing such care would be subject to registration. The new clause also provides a system of inspection to monitor the quality of care that will—I stress this—be provided in the privacy of a client's home.
The background of the new clause will be well known to the Minister, and also to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. For many years, there has been a serious anomaly in the provisions relating to domiciliary care. I refer to the lack of any form of registration and inspection procedures.
Way back in 1984, the House passed the Registered Homes Act, and more recently the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991, both of which set out in detail statutory procedures that are designed to protect residents of care homes and nursing homes. The 1984 legislation, for example, requires the registration of all establishments providing care, and a named person deemed to be suitably qualified who is responsible in law for the operation of the establishment. Each establishment must have a named person who is recognised as being responsible. The legislation enables such homes to be inspected by local registration and inspection units. More important—it is not used often, except where serious problems arise—it provides for the cancellation of the registration and for the protection of residents who may be in the care home or nursing home at the time.
The anomaly, which the new clause seeks to address, is that although such provisions exist for people who live in care homes or nursing homes, there are no such provisions in law to provide for the inspection and registration of the care that is provided privately to people in their own homes. New clause 5 applies the principles of the Registered Homes Act to care that is provided through direct payments to people in their own homes. It would be highly irresponsible for the House to pass the Bill without proper safeguards on the quality of the care provided.
I underline the fact that I support very strongly the principle of direct payments, which is contained in the Bill, and I commend the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who has pressed the issue for many years and talked to me on numerous occasions about his concerns that policy should move in that direction. I know that he supports in principle my concerns about the lack of proper regulation of the provision of such care. The need for the registration and inspection of domiciliary care is long overdue.
When the House debated the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, amendments on the registration and inspection of domiciliary care, some of which had the support of hon. Members on the Government Benches, were blocked by the Government. Shortly after the 1990 Act became law, a 66-year-old woman in a wheelchair—I am not sure whether this happened in the Minister's constituency, but it was certainly not far from it—was murdered in her own home by the carer. It is to the credit of the agency that employed the carer convicted of the murder that it has been at the forefront of subsequent campaigning to bring about a proper statutory framework for the registration and inspection of domiciliary care. I know that it has, with a number of London boroughs, been involved in bringing about a voluntary scheme of accreditation in the London area.
Since the implementation of community care legislation in 1993, the Government have argued consistently that the contracting and purchasing arrangements that the legislation introduced provided appropriate measures to monitor the quality of the care provided. That is not the view of the local authorities arranging the contracts. They do not believe that the contracting system offers sufficient


regulation of the quality of care, to put into practice proper safeguards for the vulnerable elderly and disabled people who are receiving it in their own homes. Whatever one's view of the contracting arrangements, many thousands of people, particularly elderly people, are not covered by them. They purchase their community care directly from individuals or private companies, and in certain areas, particularly those with a large elderly population, a huge number of people, particularly elderly people, are buying that care without any element of protection or inspection whatever. There is no way of monitoring the relationship between the professional carer and the person who is paying money to that carer. That leaves the possibility of exploitation and abuse wide open. That could be plugged by a proper initial measure attached to the Bill, followed by much wider legislation covering everybody affected by community care.
Cities such as Bournemouth in the south of England and Harrogate in my part of Yorkshire have considerable numbers of elderly people, some with more resources than average. They are directly purchasing care and are wide open to exploitation. They deserve the protection of the House.
The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 was aimed at increasing the number of private sector providers of care. The Government believed that increasingly local authorities would become enablers rather than direct providers. Since the implementation of that Act, there has been a marked reduction in the number of local authority home carers and a marked increase in the number of private sector home carers—but they are unregulated, unregistered and uninspected private companies.
I have calculated that during the first year following the community care changes—1992 to 1993—the number of households receiving care services from the private sector increased by 47 per cent. That is a marked increase in private sector involvement in the provision of community care. I am not saying that all private sector companies provide poor-quality care. However, I am concerned—and the private companies share my concern—that there should be, in the interests of those private companies, a proper registration and inspection company to root out the small number of people who should not be involved in the provision of intimate, personal care in the privacy of people's homes.
The Minister may remember that on 24 March 1992, before he joined the Department, I introduced a Bill under the ten-minute rule procedure to provide for the registration of domiciliary care agencies. That Bill had cross-party support and included among its sponsors the hon. Members for Mid-Kent and for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims). The Bill was given a Second Reading by 188 votes to one—the one being the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover), who has still to explain to me why he voted against it. I think he was late back from his lunch. Unfortunately, the Bill was subsequently blocked, but I have reintroduced it and it is due for its Second Reading in July.
When I introduced the Bill, the Minister's predecessor assured me—behind the Chair, immediately after I had spoken—that in principle he shared my concerns. He said that there would be a review of the registration and

inspection procedures and that it would take account of domiciliary care. We are still awaiting completion of that review and we need to ensure some urgency—

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I am listening with great attention to the hon. Gentleman, who was good enough to make some kind remarks about me. He said something which I think might well have been a slip of the tongue. If it was not, it was a rather important statement. He said that he was in favour of having a registration and inspection company. That is an interesting concept, but not one that I would automatically expect to come from the hon. Gentleman's lips.

Mr. Hinchliffe: It was probably a misunderstanding of my Yorkshire accent. If I did say that, it was most certainly a slip of the tongue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) recently made it clear that the Labour party favours an independent inspection and registration unit. That is important. It is also important to point out that some Labour Members have been accused of being anti-private sector, although we have argued for many years—including during the period when the community care legislation was passed—that there are problems in having such inspection arrangements in local authorities and that, on occasion, there are subtle pressures on inspection units to go easy on local authority provision. To be consistent—I think that we are absolutely correct to be consistent on this point—we believe in independent units rather than in companies. That is what I was referring to.
3.45 pm
The hon. Member for Mid-Kent will remember that when I introduced the Registration of Domiciliary Care Agencies Bill—of which he is a sponsor—and subsequently, that all-party campaign was supported by virtually every individual and organisation concerned with the care of elderly and disabled people, and particularly by those concerned with the provision of domiciliary care.
I am sure that the principle of new clause 5, which was drafted rather hurriedly last week, will be supported by all those agencies, which include the Joint Advisory Group of Domiciliary Care Associations, the United Kingdom Homecare Association—which has more than 300 voluntary and private agencies as members, the National Association of Registration and Inspection Officers, the British Association of Social Workers, the Social Care Association, the Association of Directors of Social Services and Age Concern. It is important to reiterate that some of those organisations have, along with individual local authorities, developed local voluntary accreditation schemes for domiciliary care, and that all of them are still actively campaigning for a proper statutory system to register and inspect domiciliary care.
I am concerned about the Government's position on the issue. Knowing the Minister reasonably well, I suspect that he, too, is probably a bit uneasy about the Government's position. The deregulation theme pursued by the Prime Minister has been applied to certain areas where serious questions need to be asked—care deregulation, for example. The Government's dogma in that area, and their reluctance to legislate or to bring about


by statutory instrument a proper system of regulation and inspection, are leaving vast numbers of extremely vulnerable people seriously at risk.
There are other policy changes of which the Government should be aware. Those changes make it even more urgent that, when the Registration of Domiciliary Care Agencies Bill is considered by the House, it is amended to include a proper registration procedure to protect people who are in receipt of direct payments.
The first change is that, as part of the deregulation initiative, on 3 January last year the Government removed the licensing of employment agencies. There are no longer arrangements to offer monitoring of employment agencies, although, on 3 January last year, some 3,000 licensed agencies included domiciliary care among their activities. So many organisations are obviously involved in the provision of domiciliary care in the private and independent sector.
Secondly, to illustrate the anomaly in the current legislation, I draw the Minister's attention to the nonsense of there being more private care homes that offer care not only inside but outside them, in a locality near the private care home. They are now registered for care in the home, but they are not registered or inspected for care in the individual's home in the community, which is where equally vulnerable people are in receipt of care.
That is nonsense. If a person is in a care home or a nursing home, there is some public accountability and some visibility of that person's care. People visit care homes and nursing homes and can see individuals sitting in lounges there. The same does not apply to people who receive care in their own homes. There is doubly cause for concern about that anomaly when care homes are only half registered in their work. Those who run private care homes whom I know would probably say that they realise that the present situation is nonsense and that they would be perfectly happy to be included in proper registration and inspection arrangements.
There are increasing signs that we are, rightly, moving more and more towards domiciliary care as an alternative to institutional care. The Minister knows of my concerns. I think that, from a policy point of view, we should move much more rapidly towards domiciliary care, but to do so, we need to ensure proper safeguards for people in receipt of that care. My worry is that those safeguards are not there.
There have been rapid advances to enable people to be cared for in their own homes. With improvements in communications technology, people can be monitored by telephone systems that are operated by a number of private companies and by local authorities. In some instances, through that telephone care network system, people can be monitored through the night. That means that many more people who are dependent can live in their own homes in the community. That trend reinforces the argument that the care provided for some very vulnerable people should be properly registered and inspected, as we suggest in the new clause.
Increasingly, there are moves towards housing models of care, which some of us discussed during the debate on dementia last week. That means that we should make checks on people who are not otherwise covered by a registration system. Sheltered housing, for example, is not covered by the Registered Homes Act 1984, yet I know of many people in sheltered housing schemes and in

receipt of domiciliary care who are more vulnerable and more disabled than many people who are in care homes or nursing homes.
The Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 has contributed to the push towards domiciliary care. We must recognise that as people are asking for increased packages of domiciliary care, that care should be properly regulated and inspected.
Other policy developments, with which the Minister is very familiar, raise questions about how we can operate a general social services council, which the Department of Health is currently looking at in some detail. It would be a form of registration for carers and social workers. How could that operate in relation to people concerned with domiciliary care if there was no proper regulation and inspection system for domiciliary care? How on earth would a complaint come to that council if the person providing care was not monitored through an inspection system? The whole thing does not stand up, and the Minister must accept that we lack proper provision in the area.
The Minister will have talked to his Home Office colleagues about what has been called a paedophile register. The Government may introduce such a register, but what safeguards will there be to ensure that somebody who is on that register is not providing care privately in a domestic setting? As far as I can see, that safeguard will not be there. The Minister must accept that the Home Office's policy initiatives look a bit silly alongside the lack of any attempt by his Department properly to regulate and inspect domiciliary care.
The whole purpose of the Bill is to enhance the ability of individuals to remain in their own homes and to make their own choices about securing care. People in receipt of care will be put in control of determining the nature of that care and how they acquire it. I believe that if the Bill is passed without an amendment relating to the quality of care—to the inspection of care—we shall be accused of being very irresponsible, because we shall have passed legislation that is not properly thought through. We are meant to be giving people control of their care. Is that seriously possible when the care recipient has no guarantee that a provider is operating at an acceptable or an agreed standard? We are putting a number of people at risk by not thinking the matter through, despite the good will on both sides of the House in support of the Bill.
The Bill as it stands allows the potential for abuse and exploitation. It allows for financial exploitation if people involved in the provision of care are dishonest and not properly monitored, which can happen. In my time working in local authority social work, I came across complaints about the provision of home care, such as elderly people being subjected by their carers to the alteration of wills, and pensions and benefits being taken by home carers. The vast majority of home care is provided by perfectly decent, honest and responsible people. But in every walk of life, some will try to take advantage of the vulnerable. I have come across instances of physical ill treatment of vulnerable, elderly people, a number of examples of sexual abuse of people who were being cared for in their own homes, and instances of poor-quality care.
I hope that the Minister has reflected on the contents of the Law Commission's report on mental incapacity. That reminds us all of the significant number of people in our


society who require a good deal more protection in their vulnerability than the majority of us who happen to be physically and mentally reasonably able.
I hope that the Minister will not say that we have to await the results of consultation on "Moving Forward". Everybody knows that there is 100 per cent. support throughout the personal social services—whether in the private, public or voluntary sectors—for a proper system of registration and inspection of domiciliary care. I am afraid that I cannot accept the Minister saying that we should wait a little longer. I heard that excuse three years ago, and when the National Health Service and Community Care Bill was being discussed in 1989. We have waited long enough, we all know that there is a huge gap to be filled, and I hope that the Minister accepts that we need to do something about such an important issue.

Mr. Rowe: I shall be very brief. I hope that the House will grant me indulgence as I have to chair a meeting somewhere else for a short time.
I should like to respond to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) by saying that I am greatly in favour of the idea of ensuring that people who enter other people's homes are reputable, proper people who behave in a responsible manner. I have some anxiety about the proposition that, if we are to give control over who is employed to disabled people themselves, we should set up a system whereby every individual who is chosen by a disabled person is monitored and scrutinised. That would be unworkable and a nightmare, and would create huge delays in the employment of people, when voluntary organisations frequently complain bitterly about the checks that they have to make on volunteers taking so long. I therefore have some reservations about the new clause.
A body like, for example the Federation of Master Builders—a voluntary membership organisation to which people of good will belong, and, certainly, to which agencies that contract should belong—would be a very much better way in which to deal with the problem. It could then be said that local authorities should not necessarily sanction the employment of agencies that do not subscribe to a reputable body. That would be a perfectly reasonable way in which to proceed. If that were linked, especially for contract agencies, with an insurance scheme, it would be even better, because it would give such agencies an even stronger incentive to ensure that good behaviour was the norm. So I am greatly in favour of the new clause's principle, but a little anxious about the idea proposed by the hon. Member for Wakefield.
There is growing evidence that some local authorities are quite disgracefully discriminating against private care homes. Were they to be given the opportunity to discriminate against private care contractors, that would cause anxiety.
I am conscious that I am showing discourtesy to the hon. Member for Wakefield by leaving the debate, but I end by saying to him that I support the principle, but not the proposal contained in the new clause.

4 pm

Mr. Alan Howarth: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who supports the principle and the essential objective that my

hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) has in mind. The hon. Gentleman offered some thoughtful and sensible comments on the practicalities that the registration, inspection and regulation of domiciliary care agencies might involve.
It is important that the House debates the principle, and I want briefly to underline and emphatically support some of the most important arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield made in his comprehensive speech. He has pursued this cause consistently, and with passion, great resourcefulness and enormous authority for a considerable number of years. The House listens to him with respect, as I am sure does the Minister.
It is particularly timely that we address the appropriate regulation of domiciliary care agencies in the context of this legislation to make permissible direct cash payments by local authorities to people in need of community care. There is no doubt that direct payments will lead to an increased demand for agency staff, and that makes the issue of registration and inspection one that we can no longer avoid considering and deciding upon. It is too serious and too important an issue.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield said, significant numbers of vulnerable people will be using such agencies, and they need confidence—as we do, on their behalf—that the agencies are reputable and that the people who will be employed by them and sent to provide help in the privacy of clients' homes are the sort of people who ought to be doing such work. That principle has been long accepted with regard to registered homes. As my hon. Friend said, surely it is grotesquely inconsistent that we do not take equivalent care where the interests of people receiving care in their own homes are concerned.
As the thrust of the proposal is that it will enable more people to have independence for longer periods of their lives, to live in their own homes and to have the maximum amount of personal independence within the community, it is an issue that should not be deferred any longer. It is an issue of quality, and while quality will of course depend upon the availability of funding, it will also depend on the safeguards that we are able to operate to ensure decent standards of service.
I understand why the Government do not want gratuitous bureaucracy—that view is widely shared by all parties. No one wants more regulation than is genuinely necessary, although we may have differences of view as to the variety of areas in which regulation might be needed and the extent to which it is appropriate to regulate. I do remember, and appreciated at the time, that when the Government were announcing their great crusade against regulation, they were careful—and wise—to say that they would not play fast and loose with health and safety, and that they had no prejudice against regulation where genuine issues of health and safety were at stake. We are considering one such issue—the regulation of domiciliary care agencies that are providing services to vulnerable and disabled people.
The Government need not fear that sensibly designed regulation would meet resistance and resentment from local authorities. The Association of Directors of Social Services has expressed its support for such regulation. I hope that the Government will accept that the use of private enterprise does not mean that they can wash their hands of the social consequences.
Most recipients of direct payments will certainly want to employ their own assistants directly and, at least in the first instance, will not wish to resort to domiciliary care agencies. However, many will need agency staff, whether it is for moments of emergency, for periodic respite to enable their normal employees to take time off or to supplement the ordinary support that they employ, perhaps for specialised tasks.
The Minister needs to consider thoughtfully and imaginatively—as is his custom in taking such decisions—what that should mean in practice. I put it to him that the level playing field that he is anxious to establish so that users of direct payments are not disadvantaged in comparison with other client groups requires such regulations as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield is proposing. Those assurances and safeguards will enable recipients of direct payments to have the same confidence in the quality and safety of the service and that the people who they will be admitting into their homes to perform perhaps intimate tasks on their behalf will be as suitable as those employed by the social services department.
The Minister may recall some of the research that has been published over the years on the operation of the independent living fund. Perhaps he will have read "Cash for Care" and "Taking Care in the Market" by Ann Kestenbaum, which contain evidence that beneficiaries of the independent living fund expressed concern about some of the deficiencies that not infrequently were found in the operation of domiciliary care agencies. Among the anxieties expressed were the failure of agencies to match their staff sufficiently well to the particular needs of individual clients and the lack of continuity of staff. Clients could not be confident that the same person would be coming to support them from time to time. That mattered very much in terms of their confidence, their dignity and their capacity to accept help in a relatively relaxed way.
The research also found cause for anxiety that agencies were neglecting training in order to keep down costs. The Government ought to accept responsibility to ensure that those employed by the agencies are not only without criminal records or otherwise plainly unsuitable, but have the training and developed capacity to carry out the work in question.
There would be no sense in introducing regulation with a heavy hand. Any regulation in these matters will have to be sensitive to the variety of small agencies in domiciliary care. It will also have to be realistic and sensible about those who are frequently employed in such work, who are often part-time workers. Nobody is arguing that an impossible set of standards should be imposed, but we have an obligation to ensure that, consistent with practical good sense, suitable staff are employed to assist people in their homes.
In Committee, the Minister said that he wanted to await the outcome of Mr. Burgner's review before he drew his own conclusions. He said that the Government would then come to a decision. Can he tell us how far that process of review has got? Has he received recommendations from Mr. Burgner and, if so, how is his internal departmental consideration proceeding? Will reference to the technical advisory committee form part of that internal consideration?
I should like to conclude by putting to the Minister the question that I put to him on Second Reading when I drew attention to the anomalous character of the VAT regime for domiciliary care agencies. Where an element of medically qualified supervision is provided, I understand that the services of an agency do not attract VAT and that it is not charged to the client. Where that is not the case, the services provided must incur VAT. I suggested that it might be an appropriate reform to exempt from VAT those agencies that satisfied a sensibly designed inspection regime of the kind for which we have argued.
On another occasion in our proceedings I was rather startled to hear the Minister say that it was always a pleasure to hold a discussion with the Treasury. I am not sure whether he has had all the joy that he might have wished and that which we all would have hoped for him in discussions with the Treasury about, for example, the treatment of people over the age of 65. Has the Minister had an opportunity since Second Reading to talk to his right hon. and learned Friend and others at the Treasury about VAT on domiciliary care agencies? If he has not had that opportunity, perhaps he will let us know whether he plans to seek it in time for the decisions that fall to be taken by the Government in November—assuming the Government are still in office—on the public expenditure round and taxation measures in the Budget.

Mr. Alan Milburn: The issue of regulation is an important one that bears directly on the provisions of the Bill. We debated it at some length in Committee and it is right and proper that we should do so again.
Regulation is important because the provisions of new clauses 5 and 11 offer dual protection. First, they protect the interests of public money and those of the taxpayer by ensuring that that money is properly spent. Secondly and more important, they ensure that disabled people in receipt of a direct payment who contract with a domiciliary care agency are afforded appropriate protection and, in particular, those new clauses ensure their right to be free from the risk of abuse.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who is a doughty champion of the rights of disabled people, has brought an important matter to the forefront of our minds. His new clause draws heavily on his ten-minute Bill, which provides a model that merits careful examination.
New clause 11 also provides protection from the possibility of abuse for those in receipt of direct payments for care in their own homes if they contract with an agency for domiciliary care services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) said, the overwhelming majority of disabled people who take advantage of direct payments probably opt to employ a personal assistant. That person is perhaps a friend or a member of their family—probably a distant relative if the Minister has his way. Alternatively, by word of mouth, they may decide to contract individually on a one-to-one basis for the provision of a form of care with which they are happy. There can be no argument about that because the thrust of the Bill is to maximise the choice of disabled people.
Other disabled people will look to domiciliary care agencies to provide staff to assist them. One can envisage a situation where illness may get in the way. Even if the


first choice of a disabled person is the employment of a personal assistant, in an emergency they may decide to turn to a professional, independent domiciliary care agency. There can be no objection to that either. In recent years there has been an upsurge in the range of services that domiciliary care providers offer to people in their own homes—whether they are disabled, elderly or suffer from mental health problems. In the main, the services of the domiciliary care providers are very good, but occasionally things go wrong and there are forms of abuse.
4.15 pm
Many people, particularly some of the disability organisations, are concerned that although it is all well and good to provide care in a person's home, there must be safeguards to ensure that the recipient of the care is not subjected to any form of abuse. We need to provide new mechanisms to ensure that all care provided is of the highest quality and standard possible. Such mechanisms would be helpful to those seeking to enter the market for the first time.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield said, in recent years there has been an upsurge in independent sector domiciliary care agencies, and the Bill may provide a further impetus to growth in that sector of the market. It is important that those seeking to enter the market for the first time understand what is expected of them—that they are aware of the quality and the standards that they will have to offer to get a foothold in the market.
Some form of protection is vital. I believe that local authorities will have difficulty in expanding the operation of direct payment schemes if some regulation is not in place. I say that for a simple but important reason: a significant element of direct payment is the control that it gives to the person in deciding how their care needs should be provided. That control is not fully possible when the care recipient has no guarantee that a care provider is operating at an acceptable and agreed standard.
The lack of regulation injects an unnecessary element of uncertainty and anxiety into the situation of the care recipient. As my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-on-Avon and for Wakefield, and the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), pointed out, we must at all costs avoid the possibility of abuse and exploitation. Regulation would allow local authorities a real sanction with respect to unscrupulous providers.
The great irony is that other care providers are subject to stringent requirements of registration and inspection, but there is still no statutory framework governing the operation of domiciliary care providers—despite the fact that the services they provide are direct, face-to-face services in a person's home. The interface is between the staff member working for the agency and the disabled person, and there is little likelihood of anyone else being around. The clients of domiciliary care agencies are among the most vulnerable in the population, yet the protection that they are currently afforded under the law in their own homes is negligible compared with the protection that is afforded to clients of residential care homes and nursing homes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield made an extremely important point when he said that that irony was becoming greater by the day. As residential care

providers in the independent sector find it more difficult to fill their homes, they are increasingly looking to diversify and are moving into outreach work to use their skills and resources to provide care, not in their residential care homes, but in people's own homes. However, there are two standards: when those providers provide care in the residential care home setting, they have to fulfil fairly stringent inspections and regulation requirements, but when they provide the self-same skills and resources in an individual's home, there is no such standard or quality requirement. We must clearly address that matter.
Those double standards explain why organisations such as the British Medical Association and the Association of Directors of Social Services, in responding to the Bill, have expressed anxiety about the lack of a regulatory framework to govern the provision of domiciliary care. Both organisations have called for precisely the form of regulation that is encompassed in both new clause 5 and new clause 11. Their concern, my concern and, I think, the concern of all hon. Members, would be to ensure that the Bill is not compromised or denigrated because those in receipt of direct payments are subjected to any form of abuse.
New clauses 5 and 11 help to provide safeguards against such abuse. Opposition Members have repeatedly called for such safeguards to be put in place; our call has found a ready echo in the independent domiciliary care sector. The agencies in that sector understand that they provide care for vulnerable people who have few opportunities to raise questions about services and who need protection from unscrupulous operators, however few and far between they are. Such protection is in all our interests and it is certainly in the taxpayer's interest. The last thing that anyone wants to see is public money subsidising exploitation or abuse. Such protection is also in the interest of the overwhelming majority of agencies in the domiciliary care sector which are reputable private sector operators who want to drive the cowboys out of the industry. Most importantly, it is in the interests of disabled people themselves—so that they can feel that they are guaranteed, as far as possible, a proper form of protection.
In the past and in Committee the Minister said that some local authorities had developed good local accreditation schemes that accredit individual domiciliary care agencies. But those accreditation schemes are essentially voluntary and they do not offer nationwide coverage. In the past the Minister has said that it would be appropriate to build into the contracts between local authorities and private providers safeguards that would protect disabled or elderly people in their homes. That is all well and good when the local authority makes a contract on behalf of the individual to provide domiciliary care services, but that does not occur in the Bill.
The Bill rightly empowers the disabled person to contract for himself to buy the care that is most appropriate for his needs. We are talking about a direct, not indirect, form of contract. There is a special need to ensure that proper protection is afforded to buttress that form of contract, which is why we want to see regulation in the Bill.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon has just said, we heard in Committee that the Minister will shortly consider the results of the consultation on the Department of Health's document "Moving Forward". That consultation has now ended, but the Minister felt unable to give the Committee an insight into his thinking


about the likely recommendations or the time scale for the decision. Now that we have moved on a month or so, perhaps the Minister will feel more liberated and will be able to tell us more about his thinking and the time scale that we might work to.
It is clear, however, that we cannot wait endless months for the result of the Burgner review to be published, then for the Government's further consultation to begin and then finally for the possibility of legislation being brought forward to the House. Today, the Bill will go through the House and it will become an Act of Parliament. We all rejoice at that, because the Bill has enjoyed cross-party support, but all hon. Members are concerned to ensure that proper protection will be afforded to those who take advantage of the direct payments route.
In case there is any confusion, I must make it clear that the same regulatory standards should apply equally to public and private sector organisations. The issue is not who provides the care, but the quality of care. The quality of care that people experience is important, not who provides it. We all want to see public and private sector organisations provide the highest standards of care possible. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield was right to point to the Labour party's policy of ensuring independence. We want regulation to become genuinely independent so that there can be no question of any vested interest obstructing the highest possible standards of care, whether care is provided in the residential sector, the domiciliary sector, the supported housing sector or as respite care and whether it is run by the private sector, the charitable sector, the voluntary sector or the public sector. Independence of regulation will ensure that the highest possible standards are maintained and ratcheted up.
If independence of regulation is to work properly, it must enjoy the support of disabled people and disability organisations. It is important that any consultation on our proposal in new clauses 5 and 11 actively enlists disability organisations so that they feel that they have been fully consulted in the establishment of a better regulatory environment. In that way, regulation will not compromise a sensitive approach to the care of disabled people in their homes.
An important principle is at stake and that is why we have explored it this afternoon and why we explored the issue in Committee a few weeks ago. Under new clauses 5 and 11, if a person took advantage of the direct payments procedure and decided to purchase care, that person, the local authority and the taxpayer could be assured that that person would be afforded proper protection and that the care was of the highest standard possible.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): The hon. Member for Wakefield is consistent and persistent on this issue. He has already introduced two private Members' Bills on the subject, and another one has been introduced by Lord Ashley of Stoke.
As the hon. Gentleman said, we debated the matter at some length in Committee. I hope that he will accept that I am equally consistent—indeed, persistent—in answering him. We promised that a review of the regulation of domiciliary and day-care services would take place as part of the review of social services inspection. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman looked forward to that review three years

ago. However, I think that he now knows that the review has taken place—we have reached the end of the consultation period—and that Mr. Burgner, who is an eminent, distinguished and respected independent reviewer, will shortly bring forward his conclusions. Therefore, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing precisely what he has asked for.
We are looking wider than the new clauses. Our review is examining the question of regulation of domiciliary and day services regardless of whether they are used by direct payment users. The new clauses would limit such regulation to those services used by people in receipt of direct payments. I do not see the logic in that proposal. However, I am sure that the House will agree that it would be premature, if not bizarre, to take any action before we know the results of the review—which are not far away. When we have seen Mr. Burgner's report, we shall be able to examine the issue fully and then consult widely about any proposals that we intend to bring forward.

Mr. Hinchliffe: The Minister said that the conclusions of the review are due shortly. When will we receive the conclusions of Mr. Burgner's review? What steps will the Government take to legislate and to act upon those conclusions? Can the Minister anticipate what might happen subsequent to the conclusion of the Burgner review?

Mr. Bowis: I do not know exactly when Mr. Burgner will submit his report to me or to my colleagues in Government. The matter is in his hands. However, I genuinely expect to receive it very shortly and I am sure that we will be able to go public about the results before the House rises in the summer.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Further to that point, I stress that the review is needed urgently and I hope that we will receive the results before the summer recess. I have drawn the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other Ministers to several issues of concern in the north-west. In fact, there are cases before the courts at the moment regarding the conflict of interest that occurs when local authorities act as both providers and gatekeepers of the standards.

Mr. Bowis: I understand my hon. Friend's concern; he has been diligent in raising those matters with us. I hope that he will find that the review, which goes much wider than the issues that we are discussing today, is helpful in that regard. I have already outlined the timing of the review.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Minister is being very seductive in trying to persuade us to wait for the review's conclusions. He knows that it is not simply a matter of waiting for the review's results and then reaching a conclusion about its results: he will have to find parliamentary time in order to implement those results. We have the opportunity to do that today. Therefore, his seductive arguments will have to persuade hon. Members that, if that opportunity is missed this afternoon, it will be replaced by another opportunity outlined in the Queen's Speech in the next Session of Parliament.

Mr. Bowis: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman finds my arguments seductive—I am sure that he does not


find me seductive. It would be bizarre to set up a review to be conducted by an eminent independent rapporteur and then to say, "To heck with that, we shall push through legislation before we have the results." That would be nonsense.
The hon. Member for Wakefield raised some interesting points—he knows that I respect his views. However, the more I listened to him, the more I thought that he raised as many questions as he answered. I think that he would agree with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) raised just some of those. Clearly, if we are introducing a measure that is supposed to be user-friendly for people who are in receipt of direct payments, we must be careful about how we impose on top of that a bureaucracy that requires some form of vetting, inspection and regulation of people. After all, in a few moments, Opposition Members will be pressing me to be even more relaxed about members of the family, neighbours, friends and so on. We must, therefore, consider carefully where this might be going.
The other point of which we must be wary is introducing something specifically and only for direct payments which would not be available for people in receipt of domiciliary services as a whole. The whole thrust of our work in Committee has been to ensure that we have a level playing field between direct payments beneficiaries and direct users of service. We would be wise to ensure that, as a result of Burgner, we bring it all together, that the system will be effective across the board and that we do not try to distinguish between the two.
As we know, there are already safeguards for direct payments recipients. No one will be forced to take on any direct payment. When people accept a direct payment, they will not be abandoned by the local authority. Each local authority will need to have in place appropriate monitoring arrangements, so that they are satisfied that recipients are receiving the care that they require. Clause 2 makes it clear that, if the authority is not satisfied that the person is receiving the appropriate care, its responsibilities towards that person are the same as if no payment had been made, so people should not find themselves without care that the authority has said that they should have.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) raised again the VAT issue and whether I enjoy my conversations with my Treasury colleagues, which I always do. As I said to him, I think, in Committee, it is a matter not just of conversations, however friendly, with the Treasury, but of European Community law. As, I hope, I explained in Committee, EC law requires member states to exempt the supply of medical services by medical professions and United Kingdom legislation defines that as those on the statutory medical registers, so the UK cannot exempt the supply of services by someone who is not on a statutory medical register, or exempt supply that is not predominantly medical in nature. That is the state of EC law. Perhaps another day we can discuss that, but I hope that that makes it clear where my friendly conversations with the Treasury have got to.
As has been said, some provider organisations have already issued practice documents to their members as a basis for ensuring standards, and some authorities have set up voluntary accreditation or registration schemes in

their regions. I expect that any such schemes would at least be brought to the attention of a person in receipt of direct payments, although, of course, it is entirely that person's choice whether to use the person or agency on such a list or someone else.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wakefield for keeping this issue in front of us. We need to reconsider it carefully to find out how we should go forward. Today, I have not heard an hon. Member on either side of the House suggest an idea with which I am in conflict and with which I disagree in principle. We agree where we are trying to get to. We are trying to ensure that, whoever is providing services, there are adequate standards and safeguards. As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said, ensuring that necessary regulation is in place has always been behind our deregulatory drive. When we perceive that it is right to put such regulation in place, we will not hesitate to do so, but come Mr. Burgner's report, we will be in a better position to judge where and how to go forward. I hope that, with that reassurance, the hon. Member for Wakefield will feel able to withdraw his new clause.

Mr. Hinchliffe: This has been a useful debate of more than an hour on what is, all hon. Members would accept, an important issue. May I pick up on one or two points that have been raised? The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) made an important point about the new clause relating not to agencies, as my private Member's Bill does, but to individuals. Clearly, the new clause was tailored to the circumstances that this Bill provides for. As has been pointed out, services may be provided by family members, or by other people known to the recipient. Checks on the suitability of providers should be carried out, however, to ensure that some Joe Bloggs who meets a disabled person in a pub, having just ended a prison sentence for offences against an individual, cannot simply walk into a home and receive payments. The system must be properly regulated and inspected.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) spoke of the need for sensitive provisions. Indeed, we do not want a clumsy mechanism; we want a sensitive means of dealing with the arrangements that will result from the Bill. My hon. Friend also spoke of practical good sense, and I hope that the eventual outcome of the Bill will be a practical system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) reminded us that the new clause relates not merely to the interests of the person in receipt of services, but to monitoring of the use of public money. After all, a substantial amount of it will be in the hands of those purchasing services. As my hon. Friend said, some form of regulation would allow sanctions against the small number of unscrupulous people who would be attracted to such work. He pointed out that the Bill was a new departure, allowing people to contract on their own behalf. We should consider the implications of that.
Let me repeat my hon. Friend's point. Opposition Members believe that there should be consistency of regulation across the public and private sectors: we believe in an even playing field. That is an important part of Labour party policy, which I hope will be taken into account when we consider the conclusions of the Burgner review.
Having listened carefully to the Minister's speech, I noted that he did not disagree with any of the concerns expressed by hon. Members. He understands that there is


a problem—an anomaly. I hope that he appreciates that I am taking his word and assuming that he will ensure that action is taken following the Burgner review, which he says will appear shortly. I agree with him that problems might arise if we dealt with just one element of what is a wide-ranging issue. Although the Chair did not call me to order, my speech ranged beyond the specifics of the Bill, because, as the Minister knows, the issue extends beyond its provisions.
I hope that, in the course of the review, we shall soon see Government action. Having listened to the Minister, however, and given that he seems to understand the seriousness of the problem, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 6

NATIONAL CRITERIA FOR CONTRIBUTIONS

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall issue guidance which has the effect of establishing national criteria as to the account to be taken by an authority of the financial circumstances of an applicant for a payment under section 1 or section 4 above.

(2) An authority making a payment under section 1 or section 4 above shall have regard to any guidance issued under subsection (1) above.'.—[Mr. Milburn.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Milburn: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 7—Review of impact of different charging policies—
`The Secretary of State shall institute a review of the impact on the level of direct payments under section 1(1) and section 4(1) of this Act of differing local authority charging policies in respect of the provision of community care services, and shall report his findings to Parliament within three years of the date of the commencement of the review.'.
Government amendments Nos. 13 to 15.
Amendment No. 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
'(1A) Regulations under this section shall provide for the level of any payment under subsection (1) above to be calculated in such a way as to include all such costs as are reasonable to allow the person to fulfil his statutory obligations as an employer and to ensure adequate contingency arrangements in case of absence through sickness or other cause.'.
Government amendment No. 16.
Amendment No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 16 and insert
`shall, in determining how much to pay a person under that subsection, not require him to contribute more to the cost of securing community care services than it appears to the authority that it is reasonably practicable for him to contribute.'. 
Government amendments Nos. 17 to 19.
Amendment No. 4, in clause 4, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
'(1A) Regulations under this section shall provide for the level of any payment under subsection (1) above to be calculated in such a way as to include all such costs as are reasonable to allow the person to fulfil his statutory obligations as an employer and to ensure adequate contingency arrangements in case of absence through sickness or other cause.'.

Government amendment No. 20.
Amendment No. 6, in clause 4, page 3, line 13, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 15 and insert
`shall, in determining how much to pay a person under that subsection, not require him to contribute more to the cost of securing community care services than it appears to the authority that it is reasonably practicable for him to contribute.'.

Mr. Milburn: The new clauses and amendments deal with a key principle which I think we all agree should underpin direct payments to disabled people: the principle of fairness. New clause 6 would establish a national framework for the charging and assessment procedures to which local authorities should have regard when making direct payments. Both service users and local authorities have become increasingly concerned about the extreme variations in the way in which authorities currently charge for direct services. The different charging systems mean that there are different yardsticks to determine how direct payments are made, the financial contributions that will be expected against those direct payments and the level at which such payments will be set for the individual disabled person.
Each local authority currently has discretion to charge for non-residential services under the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983. Broadly speaking, it is up to each authority to decide whether to charge and how much to charge, and, indeed, how to make the financial assessments that will determine the level of charging. Authorities therefore have considerable discretion when it comes to charging for such services.
In sharp contrast, local authorities are required to charge for the residential and nursing home care for which they contract. Laws and regulations heavily circumscribe what they can do, making it absolutely clear when—and, to a large extent, what—they should charge for such services. There is a marked difference between the national framework that the Government have rightly established for residential community care services, and the current free-for-all that is non-residential care provision. Clearly, the comparator in the Bill is non-residential care services, and that is the sector that has been booming over the past few years.
4.45 pm
That charging is very controversial for many disabled people, and for the organisations that represent them. There is concern that disabled people should not have to pay for services, or make a financial contribution to direct payments. Organisations such as the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People point out that the services that disabled people receive from local authorities—and, therefore, the equivalent direct payments that they will receive when the Bill becomes law—come about as a result of their disability. Those services and direct payments are essential to their means of living.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will sympathise with the concern expressed by disabled people about charging for services. No hon. Member wants disabled people to be disadvantaged in relation to other members of society, and the last thing that any of us wants is for them to have to pay a double tax simply because of their disability. There is anxiety about


charging, and therefore about the financial contribution that will be equivalent to the contributions made towards a service if that is what someone chooses.
As I said in Committee, we live in a far from ideal world. Charging goes on, and more local authorities are charging more for more services. Indeed, authorities are empowered to charge, and do so increasingly. New clause 6 does not compel them to do so; it merely seeks to regulate how they charge if they choose to do so. Above all, it seeks to bring fairness to charging procedures.
The absence of the sort of national framework that new clause 6 would establish is at least in part responsible for the enormous variations in the amounts that councils are currently raising in care charges. An analysis undertaken for me by the House of Commons Library, for example, shows that the cash raised by local authorities from community care charges overall rose by 27 per cent. in just one year. In 1992–93, English and Welsh authorities raised some £481 million in charges for services such as home helps and meals on wheels; by 1993–94—the latest year for which we had figures—charges had risen to £609 million. Nearly two thirds of councils in the two countries had increased the amount of their social services spending that was raised through charges.
There are wide variations in the amount of cash that is clawed back by local authorities charging for services. In Waltham Forest, the lowest in the country, only 1.4 per cent. of gross current social services spending is recouped through fees and charges, but in Buckinghamshire, the highest in the country, it is 18.4 per cent. The problem is that pressures on community care budgets undoubtedly force more local authorities to charge more for more services.
A second problem is that, by creating incentives to charge but refusing to offer clear guidelines to local authorities on charging policies, the Government have invented a charter for confusion. The result of not having a national framework for non-residential care services is not only that more local authorities charge more for a greater number of services but that different local authorities operate markedly different means of charging. Local authorities make different assessments of the value of disabled people's assets and incomes—even their benefits—when calculating what financial contributions they should make towards a service. If they make different calculations for direct services, they will also make different calculations when assessing the direct payments that they make under the Bill.
A number of organisations—not just disability organisations—have expressed great concern about the lottery that we currently have in charging provision, and local authority associations, for example, have spent many months trying to establish new protocols that they can issue to their member authorities on what is and what is not appropriate for local charging regimes. Of course disability organisations are concerned about the operation of those regimes, but, in the past few months, equally as reputable an organisation as the Audit Commission has highlighted the fact that people on income support in one authority may be charged more for care than people in receipt of a much higher income in another authority, simply because of the latitude that local authorities have in determining their charging procedures. Clearly, disability organisations are concerned that people's

benefits are often used to pay charges and that their disability-related living expenses are not always fully taken into account when their ability to pay is assessed.
Amendment No. 3, for England and Wales, and amendment No. 4, for Scotland, would address the specific disability related cost concerns. They would ensure that when a local authority makes a direct payment it should properly take account of a disabled person's expenditure as an employer. There are lessons to be learnt from the experience of the independent living fund and from existing indirect payment schemes operated by local authorities. Once again, the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People has highlighted how a failure properly to assess employer costs has led in some instances to poor employment practices and to more strain on the disabled employer.
Similarly, just last year, the National Consumer Council highlighted the fact that different local authorities charge in markedly different ways in different parts of the country. It also found that widely different criteria were used to assess people's ability to pay. I mentioned in Committee that the Disability Alliance has indicated that forthcoming research shows that disabled people can be asked to pay double or even treble the charges that are paid by people who live in other areas but who receive broadly similar services.
New clause 7 would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to become a key player in assessing the impact of local authority charging procedures. It asks him to report to Parliament on how those procedures affect the operation of the direct payments approach. However helpful such retrospective action might be, a proactive initiative is what is most needed. Leaving it to the discretion of local authorities to decide how disabled people's financial status is taken into account when setting the level of direct payments runs counter to the principle of fairness that we all, surely, want the Bill to promote. People in one part of the country will be assessed in a markedly different way from people in other parts of the country if the Bill, as drafted, is passed; in other words, disabled people in neighbouring authorities will receive markedly different direct payments because of the way in which local authorities assess for financial contributions.
I take the view that disabled people and the care that they receive, the contribution that they are asked to make, and indeed the price that they pay for their care, should not depend on where they live. I do not believe that any hon. Member wishes a new national lottery in community care provision to be created. We already have that for direct service provision. We should seek to avoid that for direct payments.
New clause 6 seeks to move the Government towards a national charging framework so that disabled people across the country are treated equally and fairly.

Mr. Bowis: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is seeking a common charging framework or policy across the country? He referred to the range of charging, from Waltham Forest to Buckinghamshire. Under a Labour Government, would he reduce the level of charging in Buckinghamshire to that in Waltham Forest or would he raise the level of charging in Waltham Forest


to that in Buckinghamshire? Where would he set the charge? If he does not leave it to the discretion of the local authority, he will have to set it.

Mr. Milburn: The Minister has the wrong end of the stick. The idea is not to specify a set level of charging across all parts of the country; it is to determine the way in which assessments are made. As I shall explain later, we envisage a method whereby, through consultation, we reach consensus on the framework with disability organisations, with people concerned with elderly care and, indeed, with older people themselves as well as providers. The point is that people in my part of the world, in County Durham, should not be assessed differently from people in Dorset. They might live in different parts of England, but their needs will not vary markedly.
Because of the latitude in charging methods, however, the Bill should enable the Government to consider ending the restrictions on choice for community care service users and direct payment recipients. The new clause seeks to persuade the Minister that his Department should issue clear guidelines to local authorities on the charging and assessment of people's financial circumstances in regard to direct payments, after proper consultation with disability organisations, local authority organisations, consumer organisations and others. I believe that there is already a basis for consensus.

Mr. Thurnham: Will the hon. Gentleman explain his concept of fairness? It does not seem to me to be fair to have a uniform system imposed on everybody by some central diktat. People should be allowed to decide locally what they think is fair and, if they think that local decisions are unfair, to make strong representations to get them changed locally to what they think would be fairer.

Mr. Milburn: Would the pressure on central Government or local government have brought about changes to policy in the way in which the hon. Gentleman and I would like? The world is not always as straightforward as that, is it? Therefore, the idea behind the national framework is to lend power to the concerns of local people, disabled people, in local settings.
I shall tell the hon. Gentleman just what fairness means—it is where disability-related benefits are assessed fairly and equitably in different parts of the country. That does not happen at the moment; instead it is a lottery that bears down on individual disabled people. We are trying to deal with that through the national framework contained in new clause 6.

5 pm

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am as puzzled as my hon. Friends. Local authorities have begged to be given this service to operate. The Labour party usually wants to give more powers to local authorities, but, instead, the new clause will emasculate them.

Mr. Milburn: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is arguing for or against emasculation. Clearly, the current latitude allowed to local authorities to decide charging procedures is not fair. Fairness—the famous level playing field about which the Minister spoke in our previous debate—is the common concern that we all want

established in the Bill. This element of charging is missing from the Minister's level playing field. We hope, through our arguments, to persuade him to accept it and to embody the principle of fairness in the Bill, which is fair in other ways.
New clause 6 would enshrine in the Bill the principle of a national framework that would cover not only residential but non-residential care services. That approach is advocated by local authority associations. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) jumped to the defence of local authorities, but she would do well to take note of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of County Councils, which back the idea of a national framework. They are also looking for assistance, advice and clarity.
Many disability organizations—for example, Disability Alliance—also favour that approach, which would enshrine the principle of fairness in the Bill. Surely it is unfair that some people are treated differently from others simply because of where they happen to live and the policy adopted by individual local authorities in their areas. A national framework, as advocated in new clause 6, would end that unfairness, but it would still leave it to the local authority to decide whether to charge.
I repeat that this is not about imposing on local authorities any obligation to charge or a target level for charges, as the Minister called it. It is merely a means to ensure that, if they want to charge, like is compared with like and people in different parts of the country are treated equitably.
That principle of fairness also underpins amendment No. 1, relating to England and Wales, and amendment No. 6, relating to Scotland. They would ensure that the financial assessments that are made by a local authority in determining the charge for a community care service also apply to the determination of the equivalent direct payment. Once again, the objective is to compare like with like. If a service is free, the equivalent direct payment should be free. A disabled person should not be required to make a financial contribution towards a direct payment if he or she is not making a financial contribution towards the equivalent service.
Similarly, if the service is means tested, we accept that a disabled person should make a contribution towards the direct payment. Once again, it is the famous level playing field being established between services provided and direct payments. The priority must be to establish a level playing field within a local authority so that there is neither advantage nor disadvantage in receiving a direct payment or the equivalent service. None of us wants there to be any form of perverse financial incentives either as impediments or as obstacles to receiving direct payments or any financial incentives for receiving them.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: How on earth can we nationally decide what is reasonably practicable? What is reasonably practicable for one local authority could be impracticable for another. That is not remotely national; it is purely subjective for the local authority concerned.

Mr. Milburn: If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I shall try to allay her concerns, especially about national criteria.
Our debates in Committee were about maximising choice and ensuring that disabled people were free to choose whether they wanted to receive a service or an


equivalent direct payment. There does not appear to be any disagreement about fairness, level playing fields or equality of provision. The problem is that the Bill does not apply those principles.
A local authority's power to charge for services is contained in section 17 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983, which states that when a local authority is satisfied that a person's means
are insufficient for it to be reasonably practicable for him to pay for the service
he should not be required to pay more than what is
reasonably practicable for him to pay.
In other words, any charging policy for service provision uses the test of what is reasonably practicable. The phrase "reasonably practicable" is not contained in the Bill, which instead says that an authority should have regard to the person's financial circumstances. That appears to involve a harsher and a much more stringent test than that contained in the Act.
The original draft of the Bill seemed to involve a means test at all stages, whether or not the equivalent service was free. That may or may not have been the Minister's intention; I do not think that it was. Nevertheless, that would have been the outcome of the Bill. In Committee, the Minister kindly agreed to take away our amendments for careful consideration. I welcomed his positive response then and I welcome it now. The results of his consideration are Government amendment No. 16, the consequential amendments Nos. 13 to 15 and their Scottish variant, amendments Nos. 17 to 20.
Those amendments more clearly reflect the provision in the 1983 Act. As they no longer imply a means test, I welcome them—but with one extremely important caveat. The Government's amendments make explicit a proposal that is not contained in our amendments—that direct payments be made net, not gross, of charges. I shall return to that matter later when we debate amendments Nos. 9 and 10. For the time being, I merely state that such an approach actively discriminates against the direct payment recipient in favour of the direct service user. Again, I am sure that that is not what the Minister intended. It runs counter to the principles of fairness and the famous level playing field between users and direct payment recipients. Therefore, I urge the Minister to consider withdrawing his amendments in favour of Labour's amendments.
We want direct payment recipients and direct service users to be treated equally and fairly. We want no impediments or incentives to prevent disabled people from making a genuine choice in the form of their care. We want all disabled people to be treated fairly—whatever form of care they choose and wherever they live. I hope that the House will agree to give them that choice by passing new clause 6 and the new clauses and amendments that are grouped with it.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I want briefly to discuss amendments Nos. 1 and 3 and new clause 6 in this group. I am happy to do so, more especially after that impressive speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn).
Amendment No. 1 would make means tests for direct payments identical to those for services, while new clause 6 seeks to make all means tests that are imposed more or

less consistent throughout the country. To allow different means tests to be applied would enable local authorities to sway the decision of an entitled disabled person, either towards its services or towards a direct payment, depending on their own preferences or political proclivities. That would be wrong and unfair.
I believe that fairness will be achieved only if, in addition to the section 7 guidance that the Government have promised, the wording in the Bill covering the assessment of the contribution in the case of a direct payment is identical to the wording used in the assessment of a contribution towards local authority services in section 17 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983
("reasonably practicable for him to pay".)
In Committee in another place, the Minister gave assurances that neither service users nor direct payment recipients would be treated more favourably than the other on the question of the financial contribution that each is expected to make towards the cost of their care. She spoke, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, of a level playing field and of no perverse financial incentives. She then went on to refer to section 7 guidance on this important issue. That is in House of Lords Hansard, 15 January 1996, at columns 402 and 403.
Such assurances are heartening, but they fall a little short of requiring the same means tests for services as for direct payments. To achieve a truly level playing field, the two means tests have to be at least similar, if not identical. The amendment uses the words "reasonably practicable" in describing the assessment of needs for direct payments. Those are the identical words used in section 17 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act in relation to services. I can see no valid objection to using the same words for the two means tests.
The changes now proposed to the Bill seem to me to be a reasonably practicable way of achieving what everyone—including the Government—professes to want.
Amendment No. 3 would ensure that the full costs of securing a service are taken into account by local authorities in calculating direct payments. Leaving aside the question of the contribution from the recipient, the payment should cover the real full cost of securing the agreed service. In the case of an agency providing the service, it should allow the agency's staff to enjoy terms of employment similar to those offered to local authority staff. If it is used by the recipient directly to employ a helper, the payment should allow the recipient to fulfil all her or his duties as a good employer.
In assessing how much a service provided by a local authority costs, the authority should ensure that the real total cost of providing the service is calculated. That should include all overheads and supervisory and administrative staff costs. The comparison between direct payments and in-house costs relating to individual clients must not allow a local authority to introduce direct payments as a means of reducing the quality and cheapening the cost of providing essential services.
Turning to an associated issue, I welcome the proposal in the Government's consultation paper, at paragraph 20, that a local authority will allow an individual to supplement whatever she or he receives as a direct payment from her or his own resources. In all such cases, however, the local authority must somehow be prevented


from reassessing what the individual can afford and demanding an increased contribution. Again, that is an important issue, to which I very much hope the Government will make a helpful and positive response today.

Mr. John Heppell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on providing such a full explanation about new clauses 6, 7, and 1 and Government clause 16. However, that also presents a problem. Because he gave such an excellent and comprehensive explanation, there is very little left to say. Moreover, the points that he missed were picked up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). So I am somewhat left at a loss, and, no doubt, Conservative Members would like me to sit down. But I should like to say a couple of things.
It is important that we have the necessary framework in place to ensure that people are not discriminated against on a geographical basis and that there is equity. New clause 6 is important in that respect. As for the review, I should have thought that Conservative Members would always think that it is sensible to review progress, to report back and to fine tune. That seems to be sensible to me.
I suspect that, later today, we will debate the Government's concerns about eligibility. I think that they, wrongly, have a vision of opening the floodgates and people rushing in to take up direct payments. I believe that the opposite will be true and that, in some areas, the services will have to be promoted if people are to take advantage of them.
One thing that can affect eligibility—I do not think that the Minister has taken it into account—is charging. If charging is excessive, people will not take up direct payments. If we get the charging wrong, we will put restrictions on disabled people who wish to take up this new, excellent facility offered by the Government.
The "Disabled in Britain" survey, which was conducted by Scope in 1994, quite correctly made the point that 72 per cent. of disabled people want more independence and that 59 per cent. of disabled people would like more control over their everyday lives. So the issues are choice, independence and control. However, those goals do not seem to accord with what people have said about what they might have to put up with because of the charging policy and its effect on direct payments. One person said:
Relying on other people is the most frustrating part of my life, not being able to do what I want, when I want".
That frustration would end with a proper direct payment scheme.
Another person said:
Once I was left in bed for over 40 hours, and on two occasions they should have got me up at 9 am but came at noon.
That could end with a proper direct payments scheme.
Another person said:
Home helps and night sitters who get me out of bed suddenly, without notice, don't turn up, and I have to ring people and get them out of bed to help. Social Services 'out of hours' emergency phones are not manned.
We have all heard the horror stories about people who, sometimes through no fault of the local authority, are told, "Well, you may want to get up at 7 o'clock or 8 o'clock

in the morning, but you cannot get up till 10 o'clock in the morning because that is the earliest that we can send someone to get you up. You may want to go to bed at 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock at night, but unfortunately you have to go to bed at 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock at night because that is the way the local authority service is geared." By excessive charging, we could rule out many people who want to make use of that facility.
I now turn to a survey on charging for community care services which was reported in a briefing to the all-party disablement group on 27 February. It is important that we recognise what disabled people think about present charging policies. The study was called, "The Cost of Care—the impact of charging policy on the lives of disabled people." It was commissioned by Disability Alliance and Social and Community Planning Research, and it was funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The disabled people interviewed had a high level of dependency on care provided and most had little scope to reduce or withdraw from services. People are captives in terms of the amount of care they have to have, so we must be careful that we do not overcharge them. Market forces do not apply.
One of those interviewed said:
I can't do without that service, no matter what happens. You know, when push comes to shove I've got to go to the toilet.
That is why the service is needed. If the charges are raised for such a service, there is no way that someone can say, "Well, that charge is too high and I'm going to drop out of it."
There was strong evidence that people were receiving fewer services than they needed and were reluctant to ask for more. One reason was that they thought that the local authority did not have enough resources and the second was that they were worried about charges. We need to ensure that we get the charges right so that we do not put people in that position in future.
Service users found the charging process confusing and uncertain. The quality of information that people received about charging systems was variable, with some users having no recollection of any written information. People were unclear about why charges were introduced and about how their individual charges had been calculated. That is the important point. As set out in new clause 6, we need a framework that will allow people to see how their charges have been allocated.
There are difficulties for disabled people with charging. If one looks in isolation at a service that a disabled person receives and if one assesses his or her income, one might think that he or she could easily afford that service. But people may require several services. They may have not only a home help, but meals on wheels; they may attend a day centre or receive a number of different services. If charging is done on the basis of individual services, people with disabilities may be overcharged and some of the money that they receive as a result of their disability, which needs to be spent because of their disability, may be taken into account when their income is assessed. I hope that the Minister will bear those points in mind and that he will look favourably on new clauses 6 and 7.

Mr. Barry Field: I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House for not having been present in the Chamber throughout the debate, although I have been following it on the monitor.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) mentioned market forces. One of the problems, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows well because he has been attentive in listening to the case put by the Isle of Wight on a number of occasions on these difficult issues, is that in a small community that is severed by sea from the mainland, the oversupply of just a few beds causes a problem in terms of market forces, just as having too few beds would, although that has not been the case in recent years. Despite our best efforts, although the Isle of Wight has a very high standard of care in both the public and private sectors, it is often impossible to get relatives to send clients to the island for care because visiting them by ferry would be an extra difficulty. It is rather difficult to operate market forces in this area.
Much has been said about regional variations. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows—I have told him this almost ad nauseam—the island has exceptional statistics. We have one of the highest populations in the United Kingdom who have elderly and disabled needs and who live independently. One of the curious things in the formula is the question of home ownership. As property prices generally on the island are fairly low in comparison with those in the surrounding mainland area and as there has always been a high level of home ownership—one of the highest in the UK, if not the highest—the formula conspires against the Isle of Wight. Of course, we think that everything conspires against the Isle of Wight.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for having arranged the independent review, to which he referred earlier. That has been widely welcomed by the private sector and I hope that it will come to some conclusions. I also hope that it will produce results which will smooth the whole process.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, East spoke about disabled clients' needs. I have raised the matter with my hon. Friend the Minister and it is of concern to a number of private home operators. There is a view—I do not say that it is anything more than that because I do not want to re-energise a debate of which we have had rather a lot on these vexed issues—that the local authority tends to accept for its own homes those who have long-term disabilities and long-term requirements. They have a client list of those who are likely to require longer-term arrangements than those who are placed with the private sector. I do not say that that is definitely so, but I draw my hon. Friend's attention to it. I hope that in due course, the independent review will look at that.
I take this opportunity to apologise to my hon. Friend. When I came to see him with a deputation, Isle of Wight council said that the situation involving Islecare, the council's arm's-length company—it is subsidised by the council—which runs homes, had been resolved. I now find that not to be the case although I very much hope that it will be in the next few weeks. I take this opportunity to put on the record my apology for having misled my hon. Friend, although not deliberately.

Mr. Alan Howarth: The hon. Gentleman will be able to tell the House whether it is still the case in the Isle of Wight, as it was reported to be in 1995, that if one of his constituents receiving care in his own home from the Isle of Wight social services department had savings of more

than £16,000, he would be required to pay a rate of £7 an hour for home care. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if that formula were applied in assessing the contribution that should be made for direct payment, it would entirely wipe out the direct payment? I imagine that he would not find that a pleasant prospect to contemplate for his constituents. If he is unable to tell me whether I am right in my surmise, perhaps the Minister will tell me when he replies to the debate.

Mr. Field: I am reluctant to be tempted down that route by the hon. Gentleman. What he will not know, and what has not been reported in the national press, is that there has been a lively debate on the implementation and the interpretation of the legislation concerning my constituents between the Isle of Wight council and the health authority. Quite a bit of correspondence has flowed back and forth between my hon. Friend the Minister and his legal advisers and me about precisely how the legislation is to be interpreted.
As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, we found ourselves in a rather strange situation: the health authority had a different charging rate for similar care to that operated by the Isle of Wight council. In fact, it was markedly cheaper. Since the article in the press, we have a new director of social services, Bob Culshaw, and an absolute assurance by the chairman of social services and the health authority that there will be no more nonsensical duplication of effort and empire building involving public money.
The debate concerns about 130,000 people on the Isle of Wight, of whom just under 102,000 are on the electoral register. It could not be more nonsensical than to have two separate empires competing to provide the same sort of care and service for the same clients. I am pleased to say that, with much council and health authority co-operation and much help from the Minister, we are beginning to see an end to that duplication and much more joint working and effort, which is the only way in which such legislation will ever work.

Mr. Bowis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) for eloquently and, to a certain extent, ingeniously bringing to the House's notice some of the Isle of Wight's problems and the solutions that are being found. Although, of course, the Bill does not cover the provision of beds, other than those used for respite care, his points about inspection and comparability are well made. I have certainly listened to his points, as I have to those raised by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and the hon Members for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) and for Darlington (Mr. Milburn).

Mr. Alan Howarth: Before the Minister leaves the subject of the Isle of Wight, will he say whether there could be any circumstances in which the contribution could exceed the amount of a direct payment? If so, does he intend that local authorities should use a power to abate the requirement? Otherwise, someone theoretically receiving direct payments would be denied both the service and the direct payment.

Mr. Bowis: Under the Bill, with its regulations and guidance, the contribution could not be more than the cost


of the service. That would be absurd, as has been made clear in everything that we have said. Charges have to be reasonable, as they do right across the board—irrespective of direct payments. I would want evidence of any such case to be brought to my attention to see how such an anomaly—if that is what it is—had come about.
Amendments Nos. 13 to 20, to which the hon. Member for Darlington referred, fulfil the commitment that I made in Committee. We were conscious that some people felt that the wording of the Bill might be interpreted as implying that local authorities, under their charging policies, should treat people who receive direct payments differently from the way that they would treat people who receive services direct. We were satisfied that the Bill would not have that effect, but I think the added clarity that the amendments provide will be helpful, and I am pleased to draw the amendments to the attention of the House. They amend the wording to match more closely the wording in existing legislation on charging, as has been said.
There is no difference between my view and that of the hon. Member for Darlington. If he looks carefully at the amendments that he has tabled, linked with clause 1(1) and 1(2), he will see that there is clearly a net operation and that there is no difference between the effect of either his amendments or ours. As he said, we will return to the net issue in a later debate.
The local authority is not required to means test. If the authority proposes a financial contribution, and the person receiving direct payments satisfies it that he cannot reasonably afford that amount, it must reduce the amount that that person is expected to contribute to a level that it considers he can afford, if anything. That puts it in line with the law in relation to charging for non-residential services. Both the current law and the Bill leave local authorities discretion over whether—and, if so, how, and how much to charge—to set a flat rate or a scale of charges.
New clause 6 provides for the introduction of national criteria for charging, which we discussed at some length in Committee. As I said then and must say again, it is not appropriate to try to address that much wider issue in this Bill. We kept returning to our favourite phrase "a level playing field" in Committee, and I return to it again. To introduce national criteria for direct-payments recipients, but not for people who receive services, would create a two-tier system. That would seriously undermine the level playing field that we are trying to create as a result of our amendments, for which Opposition Members have been pressing.

Mr. Milburn: I should like to clarify the Minister's thinking. Is he saying that his opposition to new clause 6 is a matter of practicality or of principle?

Mr. Bowis: I am saying that opposition to it involves a certain amount of practicality. The practicalities concern not just direct payments but issues that my hon. Friends have raised about how one could establish a national criteria and a national charging scheme. I think that it would be unworkable and unwelcome.
I turn to new clause 7. We are already committed to reviewing how direct payments work and to reporting our findings to Parliament within three years of them becoming available. That review will look at how the Act

is working. It would not be appropriate for it to examine how different local authorities are exercising their discretion on charging. Differences in local authority charging policies are a much wider issue than direct payments and are monitored in other ways. Local authorities are, of course, accountable to their local electorates and the district auditor for their charging policies. We shall expect local authorities to act under the requirements of the Act and the guidance that we intend to issue. There is no need for an additional review of the impact of different charging policies on direct payments.
On amendments Nos. 3 and 4, and as I have already explained, the level of a direct payment must be sufficient to enable the recipient to secure the services that the payments are intended to cover—this may help the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth)—and must enable them to do so legally. Payments must not be so small that people can afford the services they need only by breaking the law and not complying with legal responsibilities such as paying tax, and so on. If a local authority deliberately offers inadequate direct payments, it would not, in effect, be offering direct payments at all. It would not be a proper exercise of the authority's powers and could be challenged.
As I have said, the Government intend to issue section 7 guidance saying that the direct payment should be sufficient for the individual to purchase the relevant service—taking into account, of course, any financial contribution that the authority judges that the individual can afford to make towards the cost of care. The guidance will say that the level of payment should be set taking account of the fact that it may involve legal responsibilities, such as paying VAT, or national insurance. Local authorities must also have regard to value for money—this addresses some of the arguments in Committee—and may not be prepared to fund specific costs if the service can be secured more cost-effectively in another way.
Local authorities will need to discuss with people what contingency arrangements should be made using direct payments, and they will need to bear in mind the cost of those arrangements in setting the level of direct payments. If a contingency arises for which someone does not have cover, resulting in that person's needs not being met, under clause 2, the local authority's responsibilities towards that person will be the same as if no direct payment had been made. People will not be left without the care that they need.
The safeguards are adequate and it would not be appropriate to go further. Subject to the Bill's requirements, local authorities must determine the level of direct payments. Just as authorities decide on the nature and level of a community care service someone receives, so they have to decide on the level of the direct payment, the basis of its calculation and what it is meant to cover. Not everyone who receives direct payment will wish to become an employer, although many will. Others will contract with an agency, or secure services in some other way. To give local authorities a legal duty to include an allowance for a specific item that would not necessarily be relevant would not be sensible and would fundamentally undermine local authorities' discretion in their dealings with individuals—which, after all, is at the heart of community care legislation. I ask the hon. Member for Darlington to think again on the new clause. In doing so, I hope that he will join me in supporting the Government


amendments that were tabled in response to Labour's earlier amendments. I hope that we can have a meeting of minds on that, at least.

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. It seems that that well-bandied around phrase "level playing field" has different meanings in different parts of the House. I am grateful to him in particular for tabling a new amendment that clarifies some of the concerns that disability organisations have raised with all members of the Committee about an inclination towards a means-tested system. That much is clear, and we will return to the issue of net and gross charges in a later debate.
From what the Minister has said about his concerns about a national framework for charging, it seems there is some agreement about the difficulties in implementing such a framework. I noted with interest, however, that the Minister seemed to indicate that, in principle, he was not opposed to the concept.

Mr. Bowis: indicated dissent.

Mr. Milburn: The Minister is on the record as saying that.

Mr. Bowis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to put on the record that that is not the case. I stress that there were good practical reasons why I thought that such a scheme was not only inoperable, but would be undesirable and unwelcome. Because of that sensible set of practicalities, I formed a principle upon which I am opposed to the scheme.

Mr. Milburn: I just about followed the Minister's logic. Who does he have in mind when he says that the scheme would be "unwelcome"? Disability organisations welcome the idea of a framework that brings some clarity. Local authorities—which must administer the direct payments and the community care charging framework in general—welcome the idea of a national framework, as do the local authority associations. When he says that it is unwelcome, he means that it is unwelcome in the minds of Ministers. That is all well and good, but he cannot claim to speak for the nation on this matter.
I am concerned because the principles of fairness and equality are central to the thrust of the Bill. Those principles have been articulated in the phrase "a level playing field", but I am concerned that the Minister wants to have his cake and eat it. He wants to be able to say that there is equality between direct service recipients and direct payment recipients while leaving it up to the local authority to interpret that equality.
The new clause and the amendments aim to bring clarity to that position. They do not aim to impose anything upon local authorities, but intend to operate a fair and equal framework that can apply in all parts of the country. I am disappointed by the Minister's response, but since we need to make progress on other important matters I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause

DIRECT PAYMENTS

Mr. Bowis: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 1, line 9, after 'services,' insert
'and
(b) the person is of a description which is specified for the purposes of this subsection by regulations made by the Secretary of State,'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendment No. 12.

Mr. Bowis: As we have heard today and on many occasions in the past both inside and outside the House, the Bill has overwhelming support in the country. The Labour party was of course initially hostile, as we saw during the debate on the Queen's Speech, but I think that Labour came to see the great potential benefits for disabled people—not least having spoken to representatives of the disability lobbies—and so, happily, it has been able to support the Government's measure. I very much welcome that.

Mr. Tom Clarke: We seem to have witnessed a change of personality by the Minister within a few minutes. On what basis does he claim that Labour opposed direct payments during the debate on the Queen's Speech? There is not a shred of evidence to support that.

Mr. Bowis: If the hon. Gentleman reads the Hansard report of the Queen's Speech debate, he will find that some of his hon. Friends put forward—

Mr. Clarke: Who? The leader of the Labour party supported the idea.

Mr. Bowis: No, not the leader of the Labour party. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Hansard report, he will find that some of his hon. Friends cast aspersions on the principles—largely because they were worried that they might be some form of privatisation. I am seeking to embrace the hon. Gentleman in support of the measure, and I acknowledge that he now gives 100 per cent. support to the Bill.
The Bill comes from a long campaign by individuals and groups who wanted the independence and the flexibility to manage their disability and their working lives so that they could more easily hold down a job or voluntary work, so that they could more easily bring up a family—as I saw the other day—and so that they could have more dignity in their relationship with the people who provided care services for them. That was reflected in what the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) said.
My noble Friend Lord Macoll pioneered legislation that was picked up and developed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe)—

Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My concern about the Minister's speech


arises from a suspicion that he may have picked up the one prepared for him by his officials for Third Reading, rather than the one for the amendment. We have limited time, but is that what has happened?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That cannot possibly be a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Bowis: I am grateful, Madam Speaker. If the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) listens, he will discover where my argument is leading. I am sure that he would join me in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent and the other parents of the Bill, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham).
Another stalwart advocate of the Bill was my erstwhile hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who urged us to bring this in on a limited basis so that it could be seen to work and so that it would reassure those who were genuinely concerned about the potential costs and about numbers of applicants. Although he believed at that stage that there should be a tight definition of disability to limit eligibility, we have gone much further than that. Nevertheless, I agreed with him then, as I do now, that the pace of implementation is important.
We suggested that there should be waves of implementation, as have been used successfully when introducing other health and welfare reforms. It is because the idea at first came from disabled people of working age that we thought it right that they should go first. We did, however, listen carefully to the people who had contributed to our consultation exercise—including hon. Members from all parties—and decided as a result to expand this first wave to include learning as well as physically disabled people.
It was, and is, our clear intention that this was to be the first wave and that other waves would follow. Indeed, I am able to confirm that, at the end of the first year of the operation of the scheme, we shall review it with a view to extending it to people over 65. This would, as is only sensible, be subject to there not having been serious problems apparent in the first year of operation that demanded a refining or revision of the scheme in some way. I hope that that puts at rest the concerns that I know have been genuinely felt by colleagues in the House and by some people outside that the Bill in some way excludes older people for all time.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has just said, but although there is a strong practical case for phasing and taking such an enormously important and beneficial change at a manageable pace, why does he insist on arrogating to himself and to the Government the power to determine the rate of that change? Why should it not be for local authorities to determine the process and the timing of the introduction of the scheme? Would it not be far better to assess the eligibility to receive direct payments in terms of individual need rather than of broad and inevitably crude categories of claimants? To do so on that basis is inevitably discriminatory.

Mr. Bowis: As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, initially he wanted to limit the scheme to a narrow

category and we are seeking to go further—I shall return to his point about local government. However, I certainly do not want to arrogate anything to myself or to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—good as arrogation to him would prove to be. I want to arrogate the power to Parliament. Under the Bill, it is a matter for the Secretary of State to bring to Parliament the phasing of those waves of implementation. That is sensible.

Mr. Kirkwood: The Minister said that he would consider extending the scheme to the elderly after the first year. Will he go further and consider establishing some pilot projects to extend the measure to the elderly during that first year? That would demonstrate his good faith and show that he had in mind extending the measure in due course.

Mr. Bowis: I do not intend to put that on the face of the Bill, but there is nothing to stop pilots—as the hon. Gentleman would describe them—being established under existing and voluntary schemes, as that might help to inform the pattern of activity. We shall be interested in how the implementation takes place, and, once local authorities become responsible for the schemes, whether they are able to set them up effectively and manage the demand, the procedures and the monitoring in such a way as I desperately want, so that the measure works and gains public respect and support and does not collapse in recriminations.

Mr. Tom Clarke: We are at the heart of the legislation and we want to be clear as to the Government's position. If the Government happen to be in office in 12 months' time, will they review the position, or is the Minister telling us today that they will remove the exclusions in 12 months' time?

Mr. Bowis: No. I have tried to make it clear that when the scheme has been operating for a year, we shall be able to assess—not with any great bureaucratic procedures, but in a fairly simple, straightforward way—how well it has worked in the first year. As I said, we shall do that with a view to extending the scheme, provided that no substantial problems have been identified leading to its refinement, review and reform.

Mr. Clarke: I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for giving way again, but we want to be absolutely clear. What evidence of information does he think that there will be in a year's time—if his party happens to be in Government—that we do not have now?

Mr. Bowis: We shall have, in Government, evidence of a year's operation of the direct payments scheme. I shall return to the hon. Gentleman's point, but I want to deal with some serious issues. I hope that he will take the matter seriously as it is important to look carefully at how the scheme is operated. We share the same objective. We all want to make it possible for everyone who is eligible to benefit, but I want to make sure that we have a system in place that is operating effectively.

Mr. Roger Berry: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Bowis: I shall make some progress and then of course I shall give way.
I wish to dismiss one piece of nonsense that has crept into some of the public discussion of the matter. Much has been said about discrimination. I want to underline absolutely and clearly that the measure does not discriminate against older people, any more than it discriminates in favour of disabled and learning disabled people. It is simply an operational matter of who is in the first wave and who is in the second and any subsequent waves. Everyone to whom I have spoken—I have heard it again today—agrees that implementation must be phased.
In answer to the hon. Member for Stratford—on—Avon, social service departments made it clear that they wanted phasing and a clear two to one majority of those who wanted phasing wanted the Government and Parliament to set the phases. The lobbies and groups wanted phasing, but I have to say—I have spoken to many of them—that they are not of one mind as to how it should be done. Some wanted phasing by numbers—rationing on the basis of first come, first served—others wanted phasing by level of costs, others wanted geographical pilots and others thought that the whole onus should be placed on the shoulders of local authorities to decide their own phasing policy.
Since our debates in Committee, I have re-examined all the options. I have met a range of people with experience in these matters and I have visited and talked to the members of one of the best existing schemes in Kingston upon Thames. Each of the alternatives to the one that we have proposed results in difficulties, anomalies and unfairnesses. I have pointed out that social services at operational level wants Parliament to set the phasing. Phasing by numbers would mean that two people with equal needs and equal abilities to manage a direct payments package would be dealt with differently. That could lead only to resentment and possibly even to judicial review.
Rationing by cost would seem to be both unfair and a perverse incentive to increase the cost of a package in order to qualify. I also have the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden)—what I call the "Kemptown warning"—ringing in my ears. On Second Reading, he rightly and fairly pointed out that once local authorities had the discretion to introduce a scheme, local pressure groups would be unremitting in their determination to see them do so. My great fear is that, without an effective phasing mechanism, authorities with no experience of any scheme whatsoever would either decline to start one, or would try to do everything at once and make a hash of it, perhaps with vulnerable people suffering.

Sir Andrew Bowden: My hon Friend mentioned what he calls the "Kemptown warning". I understand when he is saying about phasing. If he were to give the House a specific timetable—based on exact dates—as to when the scheme would come into operation, phased, I would find that quite acceptable. I am in a difficult position as I know that my hon. Friend is saying with total good faith that he wants to review, consider and examine the position at a particular time without making a firm specific commitment. However, will he look again at phasing and say over what period of time—specifying

the length of that time and exactly how it would come in—he plans to phase in the scheme, rather than just talking about reviewing and judging it?

Mr. Bowis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have tried to explain that there will be a timetable. However, I cannot say exactly when the Bill will become an Act of Parliament or exactly how long it will take for the regulations and guidance to be agreed having taken into account the advice of the technical advisory group among others. I know that he understands that, but when the legislation has been in operation for one year, we shall take evidence from the experience of the social service departments that have been operating the scheme for a year and at that point we shall see whether it is possible—as we want—to move forward with the next wave so that people over 65 become eligible. My only criterion is that we must reserve the right to see whether any serious problems have emerged from the first year's experience which would lead to the scheme needing to be reviewed and perhaps refined and reformed in some way.
I hope that that helps my hon. Friend to understand that we have a timetable in mind. We have good faith in what we are seeking to do. In fact, we are all seeking to achieve the same things. I believe that we can get there with a little patience, bearing in mind the fact that we must have phasing to enable those local authorities that want it to get their schemes up and running efficiently and effectively.

6 pm

Mr. Tom Clarke: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way once again, but, as he has said, this is the kernel of our discussions. The Government were originally far from keen and sought to exclude people with learning difficulties from the Bill. They eventually changed their mind without a 12-month trial, so why is that not possible for disabled people beyond the age of 65?

Mr. Bowis: It is not true that we were opposed to including people with learning disability. In consultation, we put forward an option that we should include them, but they were not in the first proposition, which came from people of working age who were physically disabled. All the pressure came from that quarter so we said, "Fair enough. We will start with you." As a result of that comparatively small add-on of, potentially, 4,000 people or families, we felt able to include those with physical and learning disabilities in the first wave. That 4,000 is quite different from the potential 700,000 people or families should we take the proposal a stage further.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister spoke of his consultation with the voluntary organisations. How many of them wanted the exclusion of people over the age of retirement?

Mr. Bowis: It is interesting to note that many of the schemes now in operation originally excluded people over the age of retirement. Some lifted that exclusion once the scheme was up and running. We have learnt a lesson from those schemes.
Among the voluntary groups, everyone agrees that there should be phasing, but no single preferred route has been suggested as to how that should be done. It is


perfectly fair to say to the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe that I accept that, in all honesty, those groups would prefer phasing not to be exercised on an age basis. Those voluntary organisations agreed that there should be phasing, however, and I asked them how to go about it. A lot of ideas were put forward, but no single, preferred option. I have mentioned some of those ideas that would cause too many anomalies and unfairnesses.

Mr. Heppell: I must take exception to the idea that everyone agrees with phasing. The Minister referred to the views of those at the sharp edge of social services. I have the comments of those at the sharp edge in my constituency, including the head of health and disability policy in the social services department of Nottinghamshire county council. That briefing does not talk about phasing, but states:
This Bill is generally welcomed (although there are some reservations)
because it puts an end to third-party involvement. It also expressed concern
that the recommendation is likely to be piloted for people under 65 only … In Nottinghamshire, we currently fund 128 schemes where people wish to administer their own care support, of which 78"—
well over half—
are over 65.
That briefing continues:
In short"—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is becoming a long intervention. It would be better if the hon. Gentleman sought to catch my eye a little later.

Mr. Bowis: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman's authority welcomes the proposal. I believe that I noted two errors in what it perceives the measure to be when he read out the briefing paper. Should he refer to that document later, I am sure that we could discuss it in more detail.

Mr. Thurnham: The Minister has been extremely generous in giving way. He spoke about consulting local authorities that have had experience of running schemes. I am having some difficulty in understanding exactly what problems he has in mind, because I have a copy of the response from Avon social services. It makes it clear that it has not been swamped with requests and has, so far, just been contacted by 50 people who want to take advantage of the scheme. It feels that the Government are being "excessively cautious" and it states:
To set an age limit of under 65 years is ageist and again over-cautious.
In view of its experience, I am confused about exactly what are the problems that the Minister imagines exist somewhere out there. Avon is running the scheme now. It is not being swamped and it is not experiencing the problems envisaged by the Minister.

Mr. Bowis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. I hope that we are being responsibly cautious, but cautious only in the sense that we want to set a responsible pace for implementation. I know that my hon. Friend also wants that. I shall deal with my hon. Friend's specific point once I have made some progress.
We are discussing a sensitive matter, and it would not take many examples of people failing to cope with managing the money, being abused by a cowboy operator, or being taken advantage of by an unscrupulous neighbour for the tabloid presses to run and the news cameras to roll and for blame to be put on Parliament for letting that happen without due care and attention.
We have heard, of course, that we should be reassured by the fact that schemes have been around for 14 years. That is true, but in only one county—Hampshire. I am not aware of any others that have anything approaching that length of experience. Most of those of which we are aware have been set up only in the past few years, and most are, and have been, extremely small.
My officials visited Hampshire last summer and even there just 260 clients were using the scheme, compared to the total of more than 9,000 households receiving support from social services home care in that county. It is by far the largest scheme; most others have up to 50 clients—the one I saw the other day had 40—and many are making payments to just a handful of people. Some have an age limit. Other schemes, including that in Hampshire, have had one in the past but have now removed it. Whether there is no age limit, the majority of clients are, nevertheless, under 65.
I am not suggesting for one minute that there are not valuable lessons to be learned from those schemes, but we must not exaggerate their importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East should note that the research by the Policy Studies Institute found 48 local authorities were operating some form of scheme; 34 which were not; and a further 46 that did not respond to that survey. Clearly, many local authorities have no experience on which to draw. Most authorities that have schemes are not administering the payments. The arrangements that they have made to comply with the current law may give them some experience that may be relevant when they come to make direct payments themselves, but I suspect even then that there will be lessons to learn. There are therefore good reasons for treading carefully but positively.
The new power to offer direct payments will apply to any community care service with the exception of permanent residential care. There is no lower or upper threshold for the value of services somebody must be assessed as needing before he can be considered for direct payments. No non-residential services are excluded. The power would be available throughout the United Kingdom. We estimate that the numbers in the first wave to be around 40,000. A subsequent wave, should it include all those over 65, would increase the numbers to around 700,000.
I appreciate, of course, that by no means all the people in either of those categories would be able to manage direct payments, or, indeed, wish to do so. Equally, there will be some people currently paying for their own direct services who might seek access to the schemes.
What we are proposing is that all disabled people under the age of 65 who are willing and able, with help if necessary, to manage direct payments should be eligible for them from the start: that is to say, all disabled people whether they have physical disabilities, sensory disabilities or learning disabilities or whether they are disabled by mental or other forms of illness, including HIV and AIDS or any combination of disabilities.
The numbers may turn out to be quite small, as forecast by many people, but I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East to look carefully at the report of Policy Studies Institute, which concluded that current demand is restrained by lack of awareness and uncertainty about the legal status of payments schemes. The Bill will change both those factors. The report also found that two thirds of people in the study who were receiving services were unaware of the existence of a local payment scheme. When they were told that such a scheme existed, just over half expressed an interest in using it.
We cannot be certain therefore that demand will remain at current low levels once the Bill is implemented. I do not see that as a threat. I see it as an encouraging sign that the legislation will benefit a larger number of people than we may have supposed. I see it, however, as an overwhelming argument for treading steadily at a phased rate of implementation.
Finally, I refer to the amendment that was carried in Committee. It did not include over-65s and it removed the Secretary of State's discretion to authorise, with parliamentary approval, each wave of eligibility. The amendment also removed the Secretary of State's ability to exclude categories where there could be considerable risk if such people slipped through the net and were handed cash to manage their care arrangements. There are some people, including those who responded to the consultation paper, who would like us to exercise discretion—for example, for the categories of mental illness and supervision specified in our consultation paper and for the categories of drug and alcohol rehabilitation.
The nation would think that we had taken leave of our senses if we did not restore to the Secretary of State the right to exclude such people for their sake and for the sake of the wider community. I am pleased to see that the National Schizophrenia Fellowship supports that concept. For that reason, and because I genuinely believe that all hon. Members wish the measure to be a success, and because access can be guaranteed only by sensible phasing, I urge hon. Members to support the amendments.

Mr. Tom Clarke: All hon. Members will agree that when one sits through the Committee stage of an important Bill—which is then followed by Report and Third Reading—one gets to know one's colleagues fairly well. We have great respect for the Minister, and I hope that he does not feel that that respect has been diminished, as was suggested earlier. He has a lot of qualities, but being a historian is not one of them.
The Minister began his speech by saying that the Labour party was opposed to direct payments. I challenged him then, and I challenge him again, to produce a shred of evidence that suggests that the Labour party is opposed to direct payments. I shall give him some help in his research. When he wipes his brow after the debate tonight and heads to his Department, he should ask for Hansard of 17 November 1995. At column 300, he will see what I said when winding up the debate on health, disability and care in the community:
The Secretary of State spoke about my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition producing a mouse of a speech, which was particularly odd when considered in the light of the central issue of direct payments, which is, I understand, the flagship of the Government's care in the community policy. What we heard from

the Secretary of State was a mere squeak—it was quite inadequate."—[Official Report, 17 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 300.]
Far from being opposed to direct payments, we were opposed to the dilution of the principle, and we are just as opposed to that today. The hon. Members for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) and for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), and others who thought that the Minister would move half an inch from his position in Committee, will be extremely disappointed. I am not surprised—the vibes that came across when the Treasury was mentioned earlier gave us an idea of what he would say.
We have come to the heart of the Bill. The Government's attempt to limit eligibility has been the great flaw in their approach to direct payments—that was my view during the debate on the Queen' s Speech, and it is my view today. It is a pity that that is the case, given the broad, all-party support for the principle of the Bill in the House and the enthusiastic support of disabled people and local councils. If Ministers had followed through the logic of local authority discretion and left the councils to decide who should receive direct payments instead of seeking to decide the matter by regulation, the Bill would have completed its passage through Parliament by now.
Ministers have had many opportunities to reconsider. The House of Lords considered amendments, supported by the Labour party and others, to remove the regulation-making powers which, at that stage, were extended so that they would exclude people with learning disabilities and those aged over 65—those about which we are concerned in this debate.
On Report in another place, the Labour party offered a compromise amendment to permit the Secretary of State to relax the limitations on eligibility when a local authority could demonstrate significant experience and expertise in direct payments. Such was the Government's determination to continue to exclude whole categories of disabled people that even that compromise position was rejected.
6.15 pm
The Labour party tried again in Committee, and I acknowledge that the Minister came a little way in our direction. He abandoned his intention to exclude those with learning disabilities—there was nothing about phasing and nothing about waiting for a year. He thought that those with mental health problems and those with a disability arising from HIV-AIDS would be eligible, but he refused to consider providing direct payments to any disabled person over the age of 65 who was willing and able to secure his own care. The Minister refused to consider that again today.
That was not good enough for the Committee, and it should not be good enough for the House today. The Committee carried two Labour amendments, which had the effect of removing the Government's power to exclude whole categories of disabled people throughout the United Kingdom. The amendments attracted much approval, as the Minister knows. Even before the second of those defeats—on provision for Scotland, on 18 April—we had learnt just how reluctant Ministers were to concede the principle that direct payments should be widely available to disabled people receiving community care.
Hon. Members expected the Standing Committee to conclude its business on 2 April, when the Scottish provisions should have been dealt with. Instead, we were


treated to the rare and fascinating sight of Ministers filibustering on their own legislation—no doubt in the hope that they might reassemble a majority when the Committee resumed after the Easter recess. If that was their intention, they failed. When the Committee resumed, it duly passed Labour's amendment on Scotland in the same terms as the earlier decision for England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Since then, we have witnessed further indecision and delay, which was confirmed by the Minister's response this afternoon. Ministers were quite uncertain as to when the Bill should be considered in this place. Hon. Members will know that Ministers seemed ready to reach this stage some weeks ago, but then delayed Report until after the Whitsun recess. We established the reasons for that this afternoon. It is a great shame, to say the least, that the date that the Government finally chose is one when not all hon. Members are free to attend and to vote on the amendment.
What is happening today in Northern Ireland is of great importance to everyone there and to every hon. Member, wherever his constituency may be. I know that a number of hon. Members from Northern Ireland are bitterly disappointed about the timing of today's debate—the Government have made their participation difficult, if not impossible. The organisations of disabled people in Northern Ireland share the unhappiness of Northern Ireland Members. What is true in Northern Ireland is true also in England, Scotland and Wales. Disabled people are extremely disappointed at the Government's failure to accept the wishes of the majority of hon. Members not once, but twice, in Committee.
Other concessions have been made: in response to Labour pressure, Ministers in the Lords promised to review the workings of direct payments after three years. In Committee, the Minister confirmed that, at the end of the first year after the legislation had been enacted and implemented, he intended to review the experience and to return to the House with conclusions. He said almost exactly the same today; there has not been a fraction of progress.
The promise to review direct payment schemes after 12 months was originally made before the Government's first defeat in Committee. The offer today is nothing new and does nothing to reduce the concerns of elderly people who would and do qualify for indirect payments that are currently provided to those who are assessed as being in need, who agree to accept them.
This is not a response to the Government's defeat. Since the concessions on people with learning disabilities and the promise of a 12-month review were rejected by the Committee as inadequate, the Government have not come up with anything else. What mystifies many Opposition Members, many outside the House and, I suspect, many Conservative Members, is why Ministers are prepared to do no more than promise to think about things after the general election. If there was ever a promise from a dying Government, this is it. How much better it would have been if Ministers had been prepared to concede the point and to leave it to local authorities to make payments to any disabled people whom they assessed as willing and able to manage their own care.

Mr. Rowe: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that the reason for the promise is that my hon. Friend the Minister expects to return as Secretary of State after the election?

Mr. Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman, of all people, believes that, he will be as disappointed as I suspect the six and a half million disabled people, particularly pensioners over the age of 65, are today.
The promise of a review after 12 months would carry a little more weight than, for example, the three years that was spoken of in another place, if it was accompanied by a guarantee that the bar on older disabled people would be removed at that time, but there is no need for a 12-month delay. In his consultations, the Minister must have been convinced of that point; all the evidence that we have received suggests that.
I do not often like to refer to my previous speeches as I assume that I have made the point sufficiently in the Chamber, but I should remind the Minister of a speech that I made in 1995, when I said:
I hope that we are not about to consider a measure that will introduce a new form of discrimination between one group of disabled people and another."—[Official Report, 17 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 304.]
That is precisely what the Minister is commending to us today.
Ministers seem not to have understood that only a minority of disabled people are willing and able to take up direct payments. There will be no overwhelming rush of applicants when the schemes are introduced, any more than there is an overwhelming demand on indirect payment schemes currently run by many local councils that encouraged this legislation. The experience, the knowledge and the information already exist, although the Government conceded that perhaps they did not exist in relation to those with learning disabilities. The Government have the benefit of the experience of indirect payments; they know that they work and they know that there will not be a demand that cannot be met, so why are they being so disagreeable?

Mr. Bowis: I hope that I am never disagreeable, but I have a question for the hon. Gentleman. He may be right about the potential expansion in demand, but I am sure that he takes seriously the Policy Studies Institute's report. Will he respond to its conclusions, which were as I spelt out? The institute was clearly concerned that there would be an expansion in demand and so implicitly supported the view, which everyone shares, that the policy should be phased in.

Mr. Clarke: I have great respect for the institute. The Minister must have looked for a very small needle in a very big haystack to produce that example.
Many disabled people have no interest in receiving cash payments in place of community care services. Whatever their worries about charging for such services, there are hundreds of thousands of disabled people who have no intention of switching away from the local council provision that they currently enjoy. The Government must know that, for many older disabled people, the attractions of managing their own care are less great than the security that they feel as consumers of services—something that we all understand. But that is no reason for all older disabled people to be excluded.
Just as many people under the age of 65 will wish to continue to receive local authority services, a minority of those over that age would like the greater choice and control that comes from organising their own care—but that is likely to be a small minority. Among the councils that provide cash payments indirectly are some that include older disabled people as part of their client group. Their experience shows that only a relatively small proportion of people in that age group take up the provision.
In Committee, the Minister spoke of the danger that the demand for direct payments could become, as he put it, "unmanageable", and he implied the same today. We are entitled to pause to look at what he meant and see whether his concerns have been met. The Minister rightly described the job of local councils in assessing the ability of individual applicants to manage direct payments as "a significant administrative responsibility". He said that it was necessary for the Treasury to have confidence that direct payment schemes were "in good hands" and that it should "feel comfortable" about them going forward. As we said in Committee, all those matters are, up to a point, fair comment, but none of them requires the Minister to put a complete block on older disabled people, including those who enjoy indirect payments, seeking access to direct payments.
I am sure that the Treasury recognises the potential of direct payments for giving disabled people greater control over their own care at no extra cost to public funds. Direct payments might also ultimately produce savings for the Exchequer, as well as greater value for money—if so, they will be all the more welcome.
Local authorities recognise the significant administrative responsibility that they face, not just in running direct payment schemes but, more immediately and importantly, in making the assessment of needs that forms the basis of such schemes and that they already undertake before providing community care services. As the Minister reported to the Committee, many councils will wish to proceed cautiously when introducing the schemes. But the Minister had to concede that only 22 per cent. of councils approved of the regulations that the Government intend to introduce.
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities told me only a few days ago that it had no concerns about the abolition of the Government's regulation-making powers and, indeed, welcomed it. It believes that local councils are well able to manage the introduction of direct payment schemes and that the Bill, as drafted, gives them the right degree of discretion in doing so. I unreservedly share that view, as do others.
The Disablement Income Group has argued that decisions about who should be eligible are best made locally rather than nationally. If any extra discretion is needed, it should be given to local councils. That proposition is different from the proposal that the Government have put forward today. Age Concern has told hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Bill should not be amended as the Government propose. It cites the experience of existing third-party schemes and says that older disabled people are just as capable as younger people of managing their care services and making a choice.

The British Council of Organisations of Disabled People has contacted hon. Members to say that the Bill, as amended in Committee, is the right approach to direct payments. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will consider the views of those organisations, which work day in and day out on those issues, before voting on such an important amendment.
The Bill is about widening opportunities and choice for disabled people. That is why the Opposition have supported the principle behind the Bill from the beginning. The Bill, as it stands, will confer responsibility and discretion on local authorities, and we believe that that is right. It will set a test that applicants for payments should be willing and able to manage their care. That is a sufficient barrier against an unmanageable level of applications.
6.30 pm
If Ministers get their way today and return the Bill to its original form, it will include an unnecessary and undesirable element of discrimination against an important group of disabled people. That cannot be right. For all those reasons, I urge the House to reject the Government amendment, consistent with the Opposition's response in the Queen's Speech debate.

Sir Andrew Bowden: First, I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his courtesy and for the time that he gave me when we were discussing the amendment and the reasons behind it. My hon. Friend went to much trouble, and I appreciate that. He made a powerful and effective speech, but I still do not believe that the amendment is necessary. I shall not repeat the speech that I made on Second Reading, but a point of principle is at stake. Those now over 65—I must declare my interest as I am 66—

Mr. Rowe: Never.

Sir Andrew Bowden: I appreciate the compliments of the House.
Those who are over 65, who are able and willing and should have the right to be included, would be excluded by the Bill. Apart from the moral principle, why are the Government concerned? The Bill would not force local authorities to offer or make any direct payments, but it would give local authorities full discretionary powers. Are older disabled people different in some measurable way—apart from age—from younger disabled people or other adults receiving community care services? They are not. The answer must be no and no again.
My hon. Friend the Minister is on his weakest point on the subject of pilot schemes. The present pilot scheme, as I understand it, is confined to a tightly controlled group, but if my hon. Friend had widened the pilot scheme to include those over 65, the credibility of the arguments that he made tonight would be infinitely stronger. He could have included those over 65 in certain areas. Sadly, he has not done that.
I regret that I must tell my hon. Friend that his position is illogical and unfair and would be discriminatory in practice, although I know that he has told the House in all sincerity that it would not. I am sad, but I feel compelled to vote against the amendment. Even at this


11 th hour, I beg my hon. Friend not to mar what is basically a splendid Bill, for which the Government deserve praise and credit. It is still not too late.

Mr. Alfred Morris: It is a pleasure, as always, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and again I pay warm tribute to his deep concern to improve the Bill for purposes the disability organisations want to see achieved. His commitment to the cause of extending choice and enhancing the independence of disabled people is much appreciated and applauded by all of us who know of his distinguished service to that cause ever since entering the House.
The depth of interest in the Bill among the organisations of and for disabled people is made clear in all the helpful briefings they have sent us in anticipation of the debate. Their concern, like my hon. Friend's and mine, is to quicken the pace of progress from paternalism to partnership in addressing the problems and needs of disabled people. They want Hobson's choice to be replaced by real choice and that applies to the elderly among disabled people as much as to those who are younger. All disabled people are entitled to the maximum possible control over their lives.
Notwithstanding the warnings given them from both sides of the House, the Government have remained hellbent on trying to limit direct payments under the Bill to disabled people below the age of 65. That is morally wrong. To exclude people from direct payments if they are over retirement age shouts of discrimination against elderly disabled people. It is all the more serious in this case because it is being attempted by a Government who say that they have now been converted to ending all discrimination against disabled people. Thus it calls into question all that they are saying to disabled people in relation to their Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The truth about the Government's stance in this debate is that discriminating against elderly disabled people by excluding them from direct payments will keep down costs. That is their priority of priorities. What they are attempting has nothing whatever to do with logic or fairness. It is wholly reminiscent of their four-year-long obstruction of my Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Even after they were converted—kicking and screaming—to the necessity of legislating on discrimination against disabled people, they insisted on doing it on the cheap. That is what they are doing now, five years after first being pressed to legislate on direct payments.
Ideally direct payments should be payable to all disabled adults who are able and willing to manage them and without age limit. I believe that local authority staff with direct contact with individual disabled people are in the best position to decide who to include in the scheme. Under the terms of the Bill, a local authority is allowed to exclude from direct payments any individual provided it acts responsibly and reasonably in doing so. So why not let it act responsibly and reasonably in deciding who to include? For the Government not to let local authorities do so is clearly unjustified.
In his opening speech, the Minister left the impression that the Government intend to review his scheme in a year with a view to considering subsequent waves of eligibility. If that is so, is it not a powerful reason to keep the Technical Advisory Group going in order to help with

that review process? Is that not the test by which what he said today must be judged? I ask the Minister to respond on this important point before the debate concludes.
I most warmly welcome what was achieved by all-party co-operation in Committee to improve the Bill and urge the House now to resist the Government's attempt to restore the measure to its original drafting. Not to do so would be to ignore the responsibility that every disability organisation in this country wants us to discharge this evening.

Mr. Thurnham: I support the excellent arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden). It is a good Bill and the Minister deserves a great deal of credit for the way in which he has presented it and has appeared to listen to the arguments.
I am disappointed and surprised that the Government are attempting to reverse the Committee's changes to the Bill. I believe that the Bill is improved by allowing the over-65s to benefit from its excellent provisions. It is not logical to exclude that group—the Government seem to be afraid and are playing a numbers game. Local authorities must accept and face up to their responsibilities: they are the gatekeepers. I cannot understand why the Secretary of State believes that he must have additional responsibility to prevent local authorities from making the decisions that are rightly theirs and from exercising the discretion that the Bill confers. They could decide the pace at which they phase in the provisions.
The Conservative party complains that it cannot find candidates for local elections, but the Government do not allow local councils to exercise any responsibility. Here is an opportunity to allow local authorities to face up to their responsibilities and to act accordingly. If they get it wrong, they will get the blame. The Government will be unpopular if they persist in preventing 66-year-olds from benefiting from the excellent provisions.
The Minister asked me to remember the Policy Studies Institute report. It argued that people could derive excellent value from arranging their own care packages. It costs town halls on average more than £8 per hour to arrange for care, but people could make their own arrangements for only £4 per hour. These are excellent benefits that do not cost the Treasury a penny, so why do we exclude those aged over 65? There is no logic in that proposition.
The Minister said that great numbers of people could come forward to obtain benefit. But that is not the case at the moment. There is no indication that the Government would be swamped—in fact, I believe that the majority of pensioners would not wish to arrange their own care packages.

Sir John Hannam: Will my hon. Friend confirm that those aged over 65 will continue to receive the services at whatever cost to the local authority? Therefore, they will be denied the opportunity of saving money by purchasing services at a lower rate.

Mr. Thurnham: Local authorities are so inefficient that they are more likely to drag their feet than be swamped with applicants. Local authority overheads will be threatened by the measures in the Bill. Local


authorities will be cautious about introducing the measures as they must make compensating reductions in their overheads. The hon. Member is right: there is no logic in excluding those who could benefit from the provisions.
Age Concern has argued strongly that local authorities have the discretion and that the transition will be slow—change will not take place overnight. It says that it has received few representations on the subject—only two out of 30,000 phone calls and letters that it has received in the past six months have referred to it. There is no suggestion that the floodgates will be opened and that local authorities will be swamped as a result of the new provisions.
The Government's amendment sends out the wrong signal to older people—it appears that they do not count. Older people were concerned about being excluded from the independent living 1993 fund—although they had been included before and had demonstrated that they could manage their own care packages and cope with their budgets without difficulty. I believe that only a minority of older people would want to do so. The Bill creates an anomaly by allowing some people to continue their existing schemes and by preventing others from coming forward.
The Government should at least give a firm commitment about the timetable. They seem to be concerned only with numbers. They changed the provisions to allow people with learning disabilities to be included as the numbers were small. However, they have excluded those aged over 65. The responses that the Government have placed in the Library send out a one-way message. I have referred already to the response from Avon county council. I have spoken to the Minister about the views of my local authority and I wrote to him to confirm those points. The director of social services in Bolton says that there is no reason why people over the age of 65 should be restricted from receiving benefit. If he thinks that he can cope with that pressure, why does the Secretary of State believe that he knows better? At the end of the day, the scheme will be administered by the local authorities.
In its response, the Association of District Councils says:
There appears to be no justification for limiting eligibility on grounds of age". 
The Association of County Councils says that it is not 
appropriate to limit eligibility for a direct payment to those under the age of 65.
The Association of Directors of Social Services wishes the introduction of direct payments to be "positive and enabling". It continues:
The way forward is to agree to local determination of eligibility as well as local discretion regarding the introduction of Direct Payment schemes.
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities says:
Potential eligibility for direct payments should be drawn as widely as possible". 
Other organisations, such as Arthritis Care, are concerned that many of their members aged over 65 will be excluded.
I ask the Government to think again. They should allow local authorities to accept their responsibilities and not exclude people aged over 65 for no logical reason.

The Government should have faith in the system and allow all people to enjoy the benefits of the Bill. Those benefits are being provided in a number of local authority areas—there is no need for any more pilots as they have been conducted for some years. The Government are being over-cautious. They should allow local authorities to accept the responsibilities that are rightly theirs and not press the amendment tonight.

Mr. Kirkwood: It has been an interesting debate and the Minister has listened attentively to all the speeches. The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) sketched out concisely and lucidly the work that was done in the Standing Committee. I have examined that work and I believe that the Standing Committee discharged its duties admirably in canvassing all the aspects and perspectives of that important part of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman made that clear—certainly to my satisfaction, as one who did not serve on the Committee.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has a peerless reputation as a defender of the interests of disabled people. The hon. Members for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) and for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) have good reputations in terms of discharging their duties and of being particularly jealous of the interests of people with disabilities and of the organisations that seek to serve them. They have persuaded me—if any persuasion were necessary—that the Government are wrongheaded about the matter.
The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East penetrated to the heart of the Government's position, which is very difficult to understand. He reviewed all the evidence and concluded that the Government are simply worried about numbers. The House of Commons has a duty to consider that point very carefully. If we create a precedent that legislative change should be determined on the basis of numbers and easy cut-off points, that fault line could be introduced into any social legislation. That is wholly inimical to the development of social legislation.
That is very worrying. It is not a minor point or an administrative, bureaucratic detail: it is an important principle that the House must address. If it does not do so this evening, it could have repercussions for future Governments of whatever political stripe—whether the Minister or the hon. Member for Monklands, West becomes Secretary of State. Should we accept the Minister's argument that, because many people aged over 65 will be affected, we should delay extending the provisions to them in order to ascertain whether there are any difficulties? That is an appalling prospect. The Minister is a sincere man, but to say that this does not involve an element of discrimination is absurd and unconvincing.
The House wants to make progress. This is an important part of the Bill. I want to ask the Minister a question and to make a suggestion. Clause 7(2), the commencement clause, states:
This Act, except section 6"—
which deals with Northern Ireland and properly so because there are different legislative arrangements for the Province—
shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint".


That is fine. There is then a semi-colon and the words:
and different days may be so appointed for different purposes.
Why cannot the Minister use clause 7(2) to deal with the question—which he seems to have in his mind, but which no one else has asked—about the prospect of chaos and confusion if too many people are admitted to the provisions of Bill, as he seemed to argue, if I understood his argument at all? Why cannot he use subsection (2) of the implementation and commencement clause to deal with that point? It is possible to admit an ordered admission of different waves, as he put it, of people to the benefit that is afforded by the Bill's provision. It may be a pedantic legal point—perhaps I am a pedantic lawyer—but the House deserves an answer why clause 7(2) cannot be a mechanism to deal with the point that is troubling the Minister.
The suggestion is this. Some technical rule or technical reason may come from behind the Minister and enlighten him in the rest of the debate, but I cannot for the life of me understand why he does not refer to the pilot point that was again made effectively by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East and that I tried to raise in an intervention. If the Minister were to say at the end of this debate that he would specifically allow a series of targeted pilot projects that were properly looked after, reviewed and pump-primed, in financial terms, by the Department during the early stages of Bill, I would take a slightly different view.
That is very much a second best. In clause 7(2), the Government have the means of controlling potential worries on administration. If even that does not work, if the Minister said that he would give the House a guarantee that pilot projects for over-65s would be run in the first year, I would be willing to change my view of this matter. As things stand, however, the points made by the hon. Members for Bolton, North-East, for Monklands, West and for Kemptown and the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe persuade me that, as things stand, the Government have got this substantially wrong.

Mr. Rowe: The frank and open countenances of my right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers conceal wounds and scars internally. They belong to an Administration who have seen expenditure on the family fund and on housing benefit rise exponentially and unpredicted. Whether they are right or wrong in logic, they are undoubtedly reflecting that wound in what they have brought to the House tonight. Their perception of the Bill is that, in some way that is not terribly easy to define precisely, it will run out of control unless they regulate it. They have found some local authorities with anxieties about their capacity to manage something that other local authorities manage perfectly well to reinforce them in that anxiety.
There is no logic in excluding people aged over 65, but I am wholly confident that this Bill's unstoppable logic will take over the moment that it becomes law. It will be demonstrated beyond peradventure that the number of people who want to take advantage of this undoubted right will be small, that the vast majority of local authorities are capable of managing the scheme in the way in which the pilot local authorities have already done, and that the quality of life of a large number of disabled people who take up this opportunity will be improved out of all

recognition. It will become impossible for either the Government or local authorities to refuse the pressure that will instantly mount to include over-65s.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend imagine a position where a local authority, which by mistake—perhaps even by mistake on purpose—provides direct payments to someone aged over 65, being prosecuted by the Secretary of State for Health?

Mr. Rowe: Having inadvertently demonstrated the illegality of schemes that had been running satisfactorily for a while by asking the Secretary of State for Social Services at the time whether she should generalise particular legislation, I feel unwilling to answer that question. It will be shown not to have been necessary to limit the number of people eligible for this opportunity, but if the Government are that worried about it, there is little to be lost in allowing them their particular private fears. I am willing to support them in this matter.
The other matter is, in some respects, more important. As my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, organisations such as the National Schizophrenia Fellowship may ask the Secretary of State to take back the discretion to exclude certain people from this opportunity because they are deeply anxious about some individuals making a complete mess of it and there is no powerful reason why that should not be done. For both those reasons, I am prepared to support the Government on the matter.
This opportunity has been a long time coming. It is a necessary and valued opportunity for disabled people to take. It is not an easy opportunity for them to take. As Jane Campbell, one of the unsung heroines of this campaign, has pointed out, the regulations and rules governing it and the knowledge that one has to have of employment law and other elements are considerable, so not many disabled people will, in my view, rush to take up the opportunity. However, for all the reasons that I have given, I am prepared to support the Government.
I hope that the review will be started the day that the Bill becomes an Act. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure me that there will not be a huge difference between a review where the reviewer is appointed 12 months after the Act becomes law, and a review in which the reviewer reports on information collected during those first 12 months.

Mr. Heppell: I congratulate the Minister on steering the Bill through the House in the way in which he has, except in one respect: his steering of Government amendment No. 11. The Bill's return to the Chamber has been delayed, it arrives on the day when many hon. Members from the minority parties are in another place, and the Government know, as I do, that all those people would have voted against the amendment. The Government may think that that is clever, but disabled people and groups that represent them will view it as cynical. I will ensure that they know how cynical it was.
People would have voted against the amendment because it is arbitrary, discriminatory and illogical. The Minister says that no discrimination is involved in preventing 65-year-olds from receiving direct payments, but what could be more discriminatory than that? What if people over 65 were not allowed to have operations in hospital, or could not consult their GPs without a


12-month delay? In this instance, however, we are not talking about even a 12-month delay; people are being told that their cases will be looked at again in 12 months' time.
7 pm
Earlier, I cited my authority's views. The Minister began by speaking of floodgates, but tonight he has spoken of waves. According to him, the waves will come in one after another. My authority certainly had no ideas about phasing or waves. I find it difficult to accept the concept of waves. The Minister may claim that he has succeeded where King Canute did not—that, following the first wave, the second may never come.
I urge the hon. Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who spoke so well in Committee and made all the points that I would have made tonight if I had had time, to—as it were—put their money where their mouths are, and vote for what they spoke of then.

Mr. Bowis: I do not think that I will go down the "wave" route. If I remember rightly, Canute actually proved to his rather silly courtiers that the waves do go on coming; perhaps that is the lesson that we should learn. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) did not stop after his first sentence, which I liked: that would have summed up the debate nicely, following what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). I commend my hon. Friend as very much the father of the legislation, and feel that we would do well to listen to him, acknowledging the concerns that exist and viewing the amendments as sensible.
I believe that the House is at one in seeking to improve the lot of people with disabilities, and introducing new flexibility, independence and dignity for those people, irrespective of their age when the measure is in place and can be introduced sensibly and effectively. The only issue on which we disagree is the pace of change.
I listened carefully to my hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Kempton (Sir A. Bowden), for Bolton, North-East and for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), as I always do. Similar issues have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. There is an underlying worry that some form of discrimination or exclusion is attached to the measure, but I assure the House that that is not the case. The only question is who will benefit first, and who will benefit in subsequent waves of eligibility. The warnings are there; we have seen them in the report by the Policy Studies Institute, which I commend to Opposition Members.
I think that the point made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe about keeping down costs was answered by hon. Members on his own side, who made the valid point that fewer costs were expected as a result of the new arrangements. I acknowledge that his point about the Technical Advisory Group is important. I shall want to continue to benefit from the group's advice, not least on the guidance that we shall be issuing. As for the question of "pacing", I think that it is possible to "pace" a clause only if the Bill contains a discretion that can be used for the purpose. That discretion was removed from the Bill in Committee, so I do not think that the

right hon. Gentleman's proposal would work, because the regulations would not be part of the proposals linked to the measure.
I believe that we all share the aim for direct payments to be available to all who can benefit from them, and wish to do so.

Mr. Rowe: Will my hon. Friend answer my question about when the review will start?

Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right: in a sense, it will start on the day of implementation. At that point, we shall be working closely with the TAG and others to complete the details of the guidance. We shall be working on the regulation, and working to set up the monitoring arrangements. We shall assess the experience of local authorities, through questionnaires or other methods. That will start from day one of the Bill; after that, we shall move into the period of a year that I promised my hon. Friends.
I believe that pace is crucial. Wave will follow wave. But it is important for the waves to follow at a pace that will allow the local authorities, social services departments and voluntary organisations that have helped to set up the scheme to get it off the ground. I want a successful scheme, and I believe that the House does as well. I commend the amendments.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 280.

Division No. 138]
[19.04 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Burt, Alistair


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Butcher, John


Alexander, Richard
Butler, Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Butterfill, John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Amess, David
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arbuthnot, James
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carttiss, Michael


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cash, William


Ashby, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Aspinwall, Jack
Churchill, Mr


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Clappison, James


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Coe, Sebastian


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Colvin, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Congdon, David


Bates, Michael
Conway, Derek


Batiste, Spencer
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Bellingham, Henry
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bendall, Vivian
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Couchman, James


Body, Sir Richard
Cran, James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Boswell, Tim
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bowis, John
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Day, Stephen


Brandreth, Gyles
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Brazier, Julian
Devlin, Tim


Bright, Sir Graham
Dicks, Terry


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Browning, Mrs Angela
Dover, Den


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Duncan, Alan


Budgen, Nicholas
Duncan Smith, Iain






Dunn, Bob
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Dykes, Hugh
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Elletson, Harold
Key, Robert


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knapman, Roger


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Evennett, David
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Faber, David
Knox, Sir David


Fabricant, Michael
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fishburn, Dudley
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Forman, Nigel
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stilling)
Legg, Barry


Forth, Eric
Leigh, Edward


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lidington, David


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


French, Douglas
Lord, Michael


Fry, Sir Peter
Luff, Peter


Gale, Roger
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gallie, Phil
MacKay, Andrew


Gardiner, Sir George
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
McLoughlin, Patrick


Garnier, Edward
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gill, Christopher
Madel, Sir David


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Maitland, Lady Olga


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Malone, Gerald


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mans, Keith


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marland, Paul


Gorst, Sir John
Marlow, Tony


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mills, Iain


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moss, Malcolm


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nelson, Anthony


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heald, Oliver
Norris, Steve


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hendry, Charles
Ottaway, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Richard


Hicks, Robert
Paice, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Horam, John
Pawsey, James


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pickles, Eric


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hunter, Andrew
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Richards, Rod


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robathan, Andrew


Jenkin, Bernard
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jessel, Toby
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)





Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Thomason, Roy


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Sackville, Tom
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Tracey, Richard


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Tredinnick, David


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Trend, Michael


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Trotter, Neville


Shersby, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Viggers, Peter


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Soames, Nicholas
Walden, George


Speed, Sir Keith
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Spencer, Sir Derek
Ward, John


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Waterson, Nigel


Spink, Dr Robert
Watts, John


Sproat, Iain
Wells, Bowen


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whitney, Ray


Steen, Anthony
Whittingdale, John


Stephen, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Stern, Michael
Willetts, David


Stewart, Allan
Wilshire, David


Streeter, Gary
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sumberg, David
Wolfson, Mark


Sweeney, Walter
Yeo, Tim


Sykes, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Tapsell, Sir Peter



Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Simon Burns.


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ainger, Nick
Campbell-Savours, D N


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Canavan, Dennis


Allen, Graham
Cann, Jamie


Alton, David
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Chisholm, Malcolm


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Church, Judith


Armstrong, Hilary
Clapham, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Austin-Walker, John
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barnes, Harry
Clelland, David


Barron, Kevin
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Battle, John
Coffey, Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Connarty, Michael


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bell, Stuart
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Corbett, Robin


Bennett, Andrew F
Corbyn, Jeremy


Benton, Joe
Corston, Jean


Bermingham, Gerald
Cox, Tom


Berry, Roger
Cummings, John


Betts, Clive
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Blunkett, David
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Boateng, Paul
Cunningham, Roseanna


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Dafis, Cynog


Bradley, Keith
Dalyell, Tam


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Darling, Alistair


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Davidson, Ian


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)


Burden, Richard
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Byers, Stephen
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Caborn, Richard
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Callaghan, Jim
Denham, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dewar, Donald






Dixon, Don
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dobson, Frank
Kirkwood, Archy


Donohoe, Brian H
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dowd, Jim
Lewis, Terry


Eagle, Ms Angela
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Eastham, Ken
Litherland, Robert


Etherington, Bill
Livingstone, Ken


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Llwyd, Elfyn


Fatchett, Derek
Loyden, Eddie


Faulds, Andrew
Lynne, Ms Liz


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McAllion, John


Fisher, Mark
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McCartney, Ian


Foster, Don (Bath)
Macdonald, Calum


Foulkes, George
McFall, John


Fraser, John
McKelvey, William


Fyfe, Maria
McLeish, Henry


Galbraith, Sam
Maclennan, Robert


Galloway, George
McNamara, Kevin


Gapes, Mike
MacShane, Denis


Garrett, John
McWilliam, John


George, Bruce
Madden, Max


Gerrard, Neil
Maddock, Diana


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mahon, Alice


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mandelson, Peter


Godsiff, Roger
Marek, Dr John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Graham, Thomas
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Martlew, Eric


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Maxton, John


Grocott, Bruce
Meacher, Michael


Hain, Peter
Meale, Alan


Hall, Mike
Michael, Alun


Hardy, Peter
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Harvey, Nick
Milburn, Alan


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Miller, Andrew


Henderson, Doug
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Heppell, John
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hinchliffe, David
Morgan, Rhodri


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morley, Elliot


Hoey, Kate
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Home Robertson, John
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hood, Jimmy
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hoon, Geoffrey
Mudie, George


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Mullin, Chris


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Murphy, Paul


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hoyle, Doug
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
O'Hara, Edward


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Olner, Bill


Hutton, John
O'Neill, Martin


Illsley, Eric
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Ingram, Adam
Parry, Robert


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pearson, Ian


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Pendry, Tom


Jamieson, David
Pickthall, Colin


Janner, Greville
Pike, Peter L


Jenkin, Brian
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Dr Lynne (B'ham S O)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Purchase, Ken


Jowell, Tessa
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Randall, Stuart


Keen, Alan
Raynsford, Nick


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Reid, Dr John


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Rendel, David


Khabra, Piara S
Robertson, George (Hamilton)





Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Straw, Jack


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Rogers, Allan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rooker, Jeff
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Rooney, Terry
Thurnham, Peter


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Timms, Stephen


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Tipping, Paddy


Rowlands, Ted
Touhig, Don


Ruddock, Joan
Trickett, Jon


Salmond, Alex
Turner, Dennis


Sedgemore, Brian
Vaz, Keith


Sheerman, Barry
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Walley, Joan


Short, Clare
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Simpson, Alan
Wareing, Robert N


Skinner, Dennis
Welsh, Andrew


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Smyth, The Reverend Martin
Wilson, Brian


Snape, Peter
Winnick, David


Soley, Clive
Wise, Audrey


Spearing, Nigel
Worthington, Tony


Spellar, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)



Stevenson, George
Tellers for the Noes:


Stott, Roger
Mr. Greg Pope and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


Strang, Dr. Gavin

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 13, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'pay' and insert 'make'.

No. 14, in page 1, line 10, leave out from 'him' to first 'of' in line 11 and insert', in respect'.

No. 15, in page 1, line 12, at end insert

`, a payment of such amount as, subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, they think fit.'.

No. 16, in page 1, leave out lines 13 to 20 and insert—

'(2) If—

(a) an authority pay under subsection (1) above at a rate below their estimate of the reasonable cost of securing the provision of the service concerned, and
(b) the payee satisfies the authority that his means are insufficient for it to be reasonably practicable for him to make up the difference,
the authority shall so adjust the payment to him under that subsection as to avoid there being a greater difference than that which appears to them to be reasonably practicable for him to make up.

3) In the case of a service which, apart from this Act, would be provided under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (aftercare), an authority shall not pay under subsection (1) above at a rate below their estimate of the reasonable cost of securing the provision of the service.'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 24, at end insert—
'(4A) A person in receipt of a payment under subsection (1) above may secure the provision of the service to which it relates from a person, notwithstanding that that person is of a description specified in regulations under subsection (4) above, provided that the authority are satisfied that the person by whom the services are to be provided is an appropriate person.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in clause 4, page 3, line 20, at end insert—
'(3A) A person in receipt of a payment under subsection (1) above may secure the provision of the service to which it relates from a person, notwithstanding that that person is of a description specified 


in regulations under subsection (3) above, provided that the authority are satisfied that the person by whom the services are to be provided is an appropriate person.'.

Mr. Clarke: I am delighted to present the amendments to the House. I must again say that I regret that the Government deliberately staged this business on a day when we had very important talks in Northern Ireland. Without that devious approach, we could have had a very different result on the previous amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) has already drawn attention to some of the inconsistencies between cash payments under the Bill and those under the independent living fund and the ILF transfer, in relation to some of the financial issues. There is another area where the Minister has failed to deal with inconsistency between the two types of cash payment. Under the ILF and its successors, disabled people may not employ close relatives as paid carers if they live in the same household. Payments are allowed when recipients live alone or when the person with whom they live is unable to meet all the care needs. The Minister has made it clear that he will use his regulation-making powers under subsection (4) to exclude a long list of family members, whether or not they live in the same household. It is an arbitrary list that includes sons-in-law, but not nephews; stepsons' wives, but not nieces; grandparents, but not great-aunts and uncles. Putting that right would be welcome, even though it would be contrary to the Government approach today, when they have resisted all logical argument.
Rather than having an arbitrary list defining who is and who is not a close relative and barring them from receiving payment as carers under the Bill, we should apply the same common-sense approach to this issue as applies under the independent living fund. We should give local authorities greater discretion than the Minister intends, to allow the employment of a close relative where that is clearly the independent choice made by the disabled person and where allowing that choice is clearly in the disabled person's best interests.
I entirely accept, as do local authorities, that disabled people should not be exposed to undue pressure from family members to spend their cash payments on employing relatives. Likewise, close relatives must be protected from pressure to give up other work to be paid to care for a disabled person. It is for those reasons that we accept that there should be a general presumption against turning informal care into paid employment. However, in the context of that general assumption, the scope for local authorities to exercise their discretion should be wider than the Bill proposes.
The Minister made it clear in Committee that he intends to issue section 7 guidance to exclude employment of close relatives. First, he proposes:
local authorities should not make direct payments where the recipient intends to employ or contract with close relatives who live elsewhere". 
Secondly, he proposes:
Local authorities must give effect to the policy as manifested in such guidance, but they have discretion to make exceptions where the circumstances merit it. Where they do not act in accordance with such guidance they may be subject to legal challenge unless they can show good reason for making an exception."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 2 April 1996; c. 103–4.]
The Government have said that they will recognise

good reason for making an exception
where a user lives in a sparsely populated rural area or where a person might want to employ a family member for religious or cultural reasons. Those are good reasons, but there will be other cases, as the experience of users of payments from ILF sources has shown. The ILF published a report in 1992, "Cash for Care", which summarised much of that valuable experience.
The evidence is that some disabled people choose to employ relatives because of a fear of being taken advantage of by a stranger coming into their homes or because they found it less embarrassing to have a relative assist them in certain areas of their very personal day-to-day lives. Indeed, those are some of the considerations that might prompt disabled people to take up direct payments in the first place. It is surely deeply inconsistent to introduce a Bill to give people greater choice and control in the provision of their own care and then to deny them the choice of employing a relative to provide personal care, which may be what they most want and need.
Disabled users told the authors of the ILF report that employing a relative allowed them to relax immediately; that they benefited from having a carer who was familiar and trusted; that they could benefit from an extra degree of flexibility from the carer; and that they could rely on a greater degree of consistency and commitment. Those are all important points; none of them applies across the board. Just as there are disabled people who would greatly prefer to employ a family member, so there are others who would not choose to employ a close relative under any circumstances.
The key is not whether people do or do not wish to employ family members; it is that they should have the freedom to make that choice. Our amendment does not give them unlimited choice. They still have to satisfy the local authority making the direct payment that their choice is a sound one. That is a good deal better than what the Government propose. It makes the decision on who should be employed subject to the same local authority discretion and the same professional assessment by social services staff as the decisions on how much care is needed and whether direct payments are appropriate in the first place. That is how it should be.
As with eligibility to receive direct payments, eligibility to be employed should not be a matter for blanket exclusions by the Secretary of State, with exceptions allowed only in the most exceptional circumstances. It should be a matter for the free and considered judgment of the disabled person and the discretion and professional judgment of the local council.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Amendment No. 2 is a well-justified attempt to stop the Government excluding certain people from being hired as helpers because they are so-called "close relatives" or because they are living in the same household as the disabled person. The amendment provides effectively for an easing of the currently proposed ban on them.
The problem with the Government's list of who can and cannot be hired—as my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West explained—is that it includes some relatives who, in the real world, cannot really be termed "close". The surviving partner, a stepson, an aunt or a grandparent are examples.
It might be reasonable to exclude anyone who is already providing assistance to a disabled person and for whom extra help is being sought from the local authority, but that could exclude people receiving invalid care allowance and would not be appropriate in all cases. This raises the issue of how the invalid care allowance will be treated in relation to direct payments. About that there has been an ominous official silence which should now be ended.
Care will need to be taken in deciding who to classify as a partner. Is the classification to include gay or lesbian couples? How will disabled people be protected from a local authority that is over-officious or intrusive in determining whether a partner is indeed a partner?
To avoid the difficulty that the Government describe as "creating pressure for informal care to be put on a formal contractual basis" while also avoiding a hard list of excluded relatives, it might be possible to put the onus of proof on the local authority to show that the person the disabled person seeks to pay would provide the requisite care informally.
In relation to lodgers and other persons living in, the wording used throughout the passage of the Bill has been very worrying to many disabled people. As explained in paragraph 24 of the consultative paper and by Baroness Cumberlege, in Committee in another place, such people could not be paid
unless they are people who have been specifically recruited to be live-in personal assistants."—[Offcial Report, House of Lords, 15 January 1996; Vol. 568, c. 411.]
That would preclude a person who has someone other than a close relative living in the household—a lodger or a friend, for example—from arranging with that person to become her or his helper.
The wording suggests that that person would have to be hired as a helper and then given accommodation. That is far too restrictive. It would rule out direct payments to people taking in lodgers whom they subsequently decide to hire as helpers. There would be nothing improper in such a situation and, in my view, it should be allowed.
As far as the relative not living in the same household is concerned, it ought to be possible without treating it as an exceptional case—as proposed in paragraph 24 of the consultation paper—to employ a close relative who is and remains living elsewhere. The practice of employing family members not living in the same household has worked well with the independent living fund. Why should it not work with direct payments? Indeed, if complications are to arise in the case of direct payments being made to top up payments from the ILF, I should have thought it essential that the same rule should apply to direct payments as those applied to ILF payments.
An additional and most important point concerns the Government's requirement, set down in the consultation paper—in section G on emergency cover, at paragraph 33—that disabled people will have to make sensible arrangements so that they have adequate cover in an emergency—for example, if one of their usual assistants is taken ill. What more normal course of action could there be than to ask a relative to stand by for emergencies? The current proposals would preclude payment to the relative in those circumstances. That is not reasonable.
The amendment, in my opinion, sensibly opens the door to improvements in all these areas by giving local authorities discretion to take account of individual circumstances. That must be the right course to take.

Mr. Bowis: I can reassure both the hon. Member for Monklands, West and the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe that their worries have been taken into account. I understand the mystification that can occur when different funds and different benefits have different rules. There are, of course, similarities with the independent living fund, but there are also differences. The ILF provides funding for personal care for a small group of severely disabled people. With direct payments in lieu of community services, services will go much further—including such services as day care outside the home, provision of aid and adaptations and residential care.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West is quite right. In Committee, I announced the results of our consideration of the consultation exercise and announced that we would proceed with the regulations and the guidance. Those are two separate matters, to which I shall return to address the points made by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe.
The regulations which we propose will prevent people from using direct payments to employ close relatives living in the same household. The guidance will also tell local authorities not to make direct payments in cases where the recipient intends to use them to secure services from a close relative living elsewhere or from someone else living in the same household, unless that person has been recruited as a live-in personal assistant. Local authorities will be able to make exceptions to the guidance when they are satisfied that there is no satisfactory alternative.
The problems that we are seeking to avoid are the difficulty of enforcing contracts with relatives and the pressure to employ a relative who would not necessarily have been the disabled person's first choice—a problem that can arise whether or not the relative shares the home and whether or not someone sharing the home is a relative. On the basis of those problems, the people whom we consulted on this matter reached the conclusion—the conclusion that we have reached—that we must have restrictions. That is why we have decided to proceed with the guidance and the regulations.
Local authorities will have discretion to make exceptions to the guidance when circumstances merit it. The hon. Member for Monklands, West mentioned two circumstances: sparse population and strong cultural preference. I stress that exceptions can be made for other reasons and are not limited to those two. The guidance will make that clear.
In contrast, the amendment would weaken the presumption against someone who falls into one of those categories and would allow local authorities to disregard the regulations. If we were to accept these amendments, that would seriously undermine the restrictions that we propose. The discretion that we intend to allow will be sufficient to make exceptions when there are no suitable alternatives.
It would not be appropriate to make exceptions to the restrictions in regulations. I do not believe that a straightforward employer-employee relationship is possible between two close relatives sharing the same household.
The restrictions we propose will protect disabled people's independence and were supported by responses to the consultation exercise. I believe that they will create the best framework for direct payments. I hope that I have been able to satisfy the hon. Member for Monklands, West and the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Being generous of nature, I would like to tell the Minister that he has satisfied me, but I would be less than truthful if I did. However, we have carefully considered what he said, and I think that discussions on this matter will continue. As we are well on the way to enacting the Bill, it will be useful to consider what happens at local level, particularly in relation to this matter. I am sure that the dialogue that the Minister has conducted—of which we are aware and have tried to emulate—will continue.
I look forward, perhaps in a year's time, to having perhaps some influence on the review that will consider the Bill. In that very generous spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Milburn: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 24, at end insert—
1 '(4A) The Secretary of State shall issue guidance to local authorities to provide for procedures to be adopted for the assessment and review of any financial contribution which may be required from the person under subsection (2) above, and for the amount of any such contribution to be notified to the person after the direct payment has been made to him but before any such contributions are deducted.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 10, in clause 4, page 3, line 15, at end insert—
'(2A) The Secretary of State shall issue guidance to local authorities to provide for procedures to be adopted for the assessment and review of any financial contribution which may be required from the person under subsection (2) above, and for the amount of any such contribution to be notified to the person after the direct payment has been made to him but before any such contributions are deducted.'.

Mr. Milburn: The amendments return us, once again, to the principle of fairness which we have debated during much of this afternoon's proceedings and they cover issues that we discussed at length in Committee. They are of concern to a number of disability organisations, including RADAR—the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation. Their worry is straightforward.
The Bill would discriminate against direct payment recipients because it would give them different treatment from that accorded to the equivalent service user. The service user will continue to be provided with the service if there is a dispute with the local authority about the scale of the charges it seeks to make as a contribution towards that service. Indeed, service users will be able to appeal against the assessment made by the local authority on the basis of its reasonableness. Services will continue to be provided during the appeal because they are legally protected.
By contrast, deducting charges from direct payment recipients in advance, which is what the Bill allows, could jeopardise the provision of the services that they have bought. Under the amendments, any deduction or any

assessment of an individual's financial contribution against the level of a direct payment would take place only once the payment had been received; otherwise there is a risk that services could not be bought or that the direct payment recipient, unlike the service user, would have to foot the additional bill without any right of appeal.
The amendment addresses some inconsistencies in the Bill and is designed to establish a level playing field between direct service users and direct payment recipients. It is designed to uphold the dignity of disabled people by allowing them full control over their own financial affairs rather than giving power back to the local authority. We believe that it is consistent with the principles of the Bill and I hope that it gets a fair wind from the Minister.

Mr. Bowis: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) for the way in which he moved the amendment. It calls, first, for guidance on procedures for assessment and review of the financial contribution that the local authority expects people to make and, secondly, for direct payments to cover the full cost of the services to which they relate and for any contribution from recipients to be recovered later rather than deducted at source.
We have already discussed the discretion that local authorities have over the assessment of how much people should contribute to the cost of their non-residential care. I have explained why the Government do not wish to restrict that discretion and, more particularly, why it is not appropriate to use the Bill to lay down procedures for assessment.
If people feel that they are being expected to contribute too much to the overall cost of their care, the first step is for them to ask the authority to adjust the level of the direct payment, as provided for under Government amendment No. 16, which will insert a new subsection (2) in clause 1. If the local authority refuses to adjust the payment and the person remains dissatisfied, he or she will have access to the community care complaints procedure. If people do not think that they can manage at all, they may refuse to accept the direct payments, in which case they will receive services instead. If, on the other hand, the difference is small or they have already begun to receive direct payments before they realise that the amount is inadequate, they may decide to accept the direct payments while their complaint is being considered. The fact that they have not withdrawn their consent does not prevent them from using the complaints procedure or, ultimately, the ombudsman.
Those are adequate and appropriate review procedures. It would be cumbersome and bureaucratic to create an additional procedure in respect of financial contributions from people who receive direct payments only.
I now turn to the proposal that direct payments should cover the full cost of the services to which they relate, with any contribution from recipients being recovered later. That seems to me to be a much more bureaucratic system and more open to abuse than our proposal for making direct payments net of any contribution from the recipient.
I realise that the hon. Member for Darlington seeks to reflect the situation for services, where the local authority is required to provide the service that it assesses someone as needing before seeking to recover any charge for that
service. I do not think that it follows that local authorities should pay out more cash than they have judged appropriate and then seek to recover a contribution from the individual. Incidentally, the amendment does not create any power for the authority to recover the individual's contribution once it has assessed it. The amendment might, in fact, prevent authorities from securing any financial contribution where they make direct payments. Again, the level playing field would be out the window. [Laughter.] I said that I would get that phrase in again.
Direct payments are not a benefit to be added to the recipient's income. The money is paid to the individual to enable that individual to secure the services he has been assessed as needing. There is no reason why a local authority should be required to pay someone more money than it judges he needs to enable him to secure him those services. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.

Mr. Milburn: I rather like the Minister's idea of throwing the level playing field out the window. Perhaps that would have avoided all the discussions and debates we have had over the past couple of months. They seem to have been about level playing fields and little else. That may be a fitting way in which to end our discussions on the meat of the Bill before we move to Third Reading.
Concerns have been expressed by disability organisations about the way in which, potentially at least, direct payment recipients will be treated in relation to direct service recipients. However, I am sure that we shall return to the issue when the Bill is implemented. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

DIRECT PAYMENTS

Amendments made: No. 12, in page 3, line 8, after `Act,' insert

`and

(b) the person is of a description which is specified for the purposes of this subsection by regulations,'.

No. 17, in page 3, line 8, leave out 'pay' and insert `make'.

No. 18, in page 3, line 9, leave out from 'him' to second `of' and insert in respect'.

No. 19, in page 3, line 10, at end insert

`, a payment of such amount as, subject to subsection (2) below, they think fit.'.

No. 20, in page 3, leave out lines 11 to 15 and insert—'(2) If—

(a) an authority pay under subsection (1) above at a rate below their estimate of the reasonable cost of securing the provision of the service concerned, and
(b) the person to whom the payment is made satisfies the authority that his means are insufficient for it to be reasonably practicable for him to make up the difference,

the authority shall so adjust the payment to him under that subsection as to avoid there being a greater difference than that which appears to them to be reasonably practicable for him to make up.'.—[Mr. Bowis.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Bowis.]

Mr. Tom Clarke: This is one occasion when I am happy to agree with the Minister. I am sure that we are quite relieved to have reached this stage; despite our robust debates, we are anxious to see the Bill move to another place and be enacted. Many people outside are looking forward to that opportunity as well. I hope that, although only a minority of councils are involved at the moment in indirect payments, many other councils will see the opportunities in the Bill. It is very much in their interest and in the interest of community care generally.
One of the most important points made this afternoon was that by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). Although I fully understood why the Minister did not feel free to give an immediate response, there may be a case for giving a bit more study to pilot schemes.
Some problems remain, such as the problems of the independent living fund and family carers. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington did a fine job in Committee and on the Floor of the House in dealing with the important issues of residential care, domiciliary care and other matters. Likewise, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) did a great service to us all this afternoon.
I congratulate the Minister on the competent way in which he has handled the Bill. He has given us many good ideas for what we intend to do in 12 months' time. I look forward to the assistance, research, guidance and wisdom that both sides of the House have received from disability organisations, from elderly people, from organisations for elderly people and, of course, from local authorities. In that spirit, I look forward to seeing the Bill enacted. I know that, despite its limitations, it improves the prospects of better delivery of care in the community.

Mr. Bowis: I simply want to respond to the gracious comments with which the hon. Member for Monklands, West has concluded for the Opposition. I appreciate them. We have had some good discussions and debates not only in the House but in Committee. I thank all hon. Members who served on the Committee. I am also grateful to members of the Technical Advisory group, who have contributed to our discussions and helped to produce a good Bill. The Bill represents an idea whose time has come. We are moving forward with a measure that will give independence, dignity and choice to disabled people and enable real advancement. The House can be proud of what it has achieved today.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Arbitration Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's and Prince of Wales's consent signified.]

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am grateful for the support that hon. Members have given the Bill, which has made for its smooth passage through the House. The fact that the Bill has completed its stages with such ease is due in no small measure to the care with which it was prepared and drafted.
I pay tribute once again to Lord Justice Saville and members of his advisory committee for all their work in advising my Department on the Bill's policy aspects. The advisory committee brings together a considerable weight of expertise on arbitration matters and its support has been invaluable. I also thank the draftsman for the magnificent way in which he has reflected the agreed policy with such clarity.
We made some minor technical amendments to the Bill in Standing Committee. Those have refined the text on the question of the courts and jurisdiction for arbitration matters. That will give us flexibility in the allocation of arbitration business that may not have been possible under the previously proposed arrangements.
I am pleased to have been responsible for steering the Bill through the House. It is an important Bill and its technical nature should not blind us to the benefit that it will bring to those who make use of arbitration throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is the responsibility of Government to ensure that business has access to a cost-effective and speedy mechanism to resolve disputes that crop up in the course of its activities. The Bill will much improve matters. It sets out the law more comprehensively and clearly, which is in itself a great improvement, and condenses the law into a single document.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I should perhaps mention an interest as a solicitor who has long practised arbitration law in the City of London. Is my hon. Friend aware how much the Bill will reinforce London's paramount position as a world centre for arbitration, especially maritime arbitration; how much it is supported by my colleagues in the London Maritime Arbitrators Association; and how much they and I endorse his kind remarks—although justified—on Lord Justice Saville's contribution?

Mr. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend. He expressed his remarks handsomely. I am glad that they are on the record and, with his permission, I shall not attempt to gild the lily.
The Bill also provides for a system that offers finality and the minimum involvement of the courts. At the same time, it offers the parties the maximum opportunity to decide how the arbitration will be conducted. I hope that business will take advantage of that possibility to shape the arbitration process to meet its needs.
The Bill will also help to strengthen the competitiveness of the arbitration industry. I feel sure that as well as attracting arbitration business from companies here, the Bill will enhance the attractiveness of London as a venue for international arbitrations. International arbitrations are a lucrative source of foreign earnings, but the business is highly mobile. I am confident that the Bill will do much to give London a more secure position in that competitive world and, indeed, advance London as the capital of the arbitration world.
I know that many people are looking forward to the Bill's enactment. Even as we speak, there is much activity across the country as preparations are being made for enactment. Even as we deliberate, books are being written and seminars are being held to explain the Bill's provisions. In the circumstances, we should wish the Bill well on its way to the statute book.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs for his brief eulogy to the Bill. How nice it is to be at the Dispatch Box with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the Chair.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Creep.

Mr. Bell: I shall not repeat the hon. Gentleman's sedentary intervention, but I remind him of Lord Jenkins's comment that flattery is not such a bad thing as long as one does not breathe in. I believe and have long since supported that.
I was intrigued by the Under-Secretary's remarks about all the books that are going to be written. Having done an annotated version of the Children Act 1989 some years ago, it is of great relief that no one has asked me to do an annotated version of the Arbitration Bill [Lords].
The Under-Secretary said that the principles behind the Bill are clear. They restate existing legislation on arbitration while, at the same time, codifying principles established by recent case law. They introduce certain changes in the law that are designed to improve arbitration as a fair, speedy and cost-effective way in which to resolve disputes. If I may use the more eloquent—almost grandiloquent—language of Lord Mustill, the Bill combines thoroughness and accuracy in all its contents with remarkable facility, felicity and clarity of expression.
Practitioners, too, have welcomed the Bill, on which the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) touched. I have seen such descriptions as "user-friendly language" and "logical layout" which would certainly have appealed to the House, practitioners in the City of London and to King Solomon. One might ask what King Solomon is doing in our debates. His wisdom has been passed down the ages. He had to arbitrate in a particular non-commercial dispute. He had before him two women and a baby. Each woman declared the baby to be hers. Solomon offered to cut the baby in two to please both women. The real mother thought that that was a dreadful idea, the false mother did not mind half the baby, and Solomon entered his judgment accordingly. Lord Justice Saville, who chaired the committee and has been a leading light in the Bill's preparation, to which I shall return, might say that that was an example of adjudication rather


than arbitration. The Under-Secretary, who was a solicitor, and I will leave that semantic argument for another day.
I am glad that the Under-Secretary referred to Lord Justice Saville, and I should like to refer to him, too. Lord Justice Saville, the Court of Appeal judge who formerly headed the commercial court, has, in the words of The Times, "almost single-handedly" rewritten all law on arbitration into a single statute. He has also modernised procedure in line with the trend towards more user-friendly ways in which to settle disputes. If he is following our proceedings with care, which I am sure he is, his honours fall thick on him.
According to the consultation document issued by the Department of Trade and Industry, the Bill's purpose is to restate the major aspects of the current law on arbitration in a clear and accessible so way that it is readily understandable to all those who are considering using arbitration. The Department of Trade and Industry hoped that the Bill would do something that present legislation does not—explain the main provisions of English arbitration law in non-legalistic English so that those who are contemplating arbitration and those who are engaged in such arbitration will know what that entails without the need to consult experts.
I have seen some criticism—not much, I grant—that ordinary persons will not understand the Bill's language, and that, therefore, it has failed. I imagine that most ordinary persons would not understand the intricacies with which the parliamentary draftsmen have to deal, and I am grateful to the parliamentary Under-Secretary for giving praise where it is due to the draftsmen. In this instance, we are not talking about ordinary persons, but with ordinary persons who have a dispute and wish to resolve it without going to court. It has been said that people may unwittingly be deprived of their right to go to court, but those who accept binding arbitration in a contract separate from the main agreement—as the Bill permits—will understand that that means that they can avail themselves of a route designed to be less costly and speedier than the route through our courts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State referred to the flexibility of the Bill. We prefer that Bills be flexible rather than inflexible. We do not want to fill the statute book with "thou shalts", but rather with "thou mayests". Indeed, the Bill has been praised by practitioners, who applaud its flexibility. They are attracted to its mandatory and non-mandatory provisions, where the parties are encouraged to make their own rules and provisions. Only in so far as they do not does the Bill then provide a model set of rules for the conduct of the arbitration that the parties can either include, exclude or rewrite as they wish.
In addition to clarity and certainty in the law as it relates to arbitration, it is hoped that the codification of past law and its fusion with case law will ensure that the City of London remains the world centre for the resolution of commercial disputes—a fact to which the Under-Secretary and the hon. Member for Eastbourne referred. In this sense, the Bill brings together current statute law which has hitherto been spread across three Acts of Parliament—the 1950, 1975 and 1979 Acts. It fuses into statute law the case law of the past few years. The Bill, among other things, is designed to ensure that the City of London does not lose its pre-eminence in

relation to arbitration. A large proportion of arbitrations within the United Kingdom involve one or more foreign partners. The benefit—incremental no doubt, for who would wish to benefit from disputes—runs into many millions of pounds.
In the global economy; in the age of the Internet; in an age when communications span the planet with such rapidity and, sometimes, with such force; and in an age of domestic and international issues—to which the Under-Secretary referred—it is clear that our arbitration services need to be able to adapt. They need to be speedy and as low in cost as possible. As the European Union develops and—I can say this to such an empty House—moves towards the era of a single European currency, and as other European countries adapt their own laws to be able to compete within the Union, with arbitration, as with everything else, we cannot and should not be left behind.
I mentioned earlier the judgment of Solomon, which reminds me of the famous trip that Napoleon took to St. Helena, where he spent much of his time settling disputes between his cook and his butler. Perhaps it was at that time that he coined the famous phrase: 
There is only one step from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Perhaps Lord Justice Saville will tell me whether Napoleon arbitrated or adjudicated, without having the clarity of this Bill, as Lord Mustill put it. Upon this piece of useless and irrelevant information, I commend the Bill to the House.

Sir John Stanley: This is a lengthy and extremely complex Bill of 110 clauses and four schedules. It is rare that the House has the opportunity to consider legislation in this complex and important area. That being the case, I believe that there is a real obligation on this House, and the other place, to give every opportunity for those outside to be able to convey their views to Members at all stages of the Bill's passage.
For those outside, the most important stage of a Bill's proceedings is its Committee, as that is in effect the only point at which amendments tabled that are in order are automatically debated. I make no criticism of the members of the Standing Committee that the Committee stage of this Bill took a total of 36 minutes, as that is a matter for them. But this House gave those outside much less than a fair opportunity to have amendments considered in Committee by the minimum gap between the appointment of the Committee members and the commencement of the Committee.
A constituent who is a practitioner in the field of arbitration and a member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Mr. Adrien Sturgeon, indicated to me at an early stage that he wished to raise a number of amendments with members of the Committee. I obtained the details of the membership of the Committee at the earliest possible moment when they appeared on the Order Paper on the Thursday, the day after the Committee of Selection had met. I sent those details to Mr. Sturgeon, who very rapidly wrote to all members of the Committee. The fact that the Committee sat the following Tuesday and for only 36 minutes meant in effect that the members of the Committee had no opportunity to consider Mr. Sturgeon's amendments. In effect, the Committee's proceedings concluded before the members could consider the amendments.


I make no criticism of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary because these matters are not in his hands, but I believe that there is a serious and substantive issue for the House to consider. There was no need in terms of the timetable for this Bill for it to be as speedily expedited as it was. The Committee Corridor is more or less deserted at this time of a Session, and in no way can the Bill be said to require the maximum accelerated progress. For such Bills, it would be infinitely better if a clear week elapsed between the selection of the Committee members and the commencement of the Committee's proceedings. I personally regret—and ask the House to note—that there has been a material inability in our democracy for expert members of the public to have their amendments considered by Standing Committee members.

Mr. Bell: I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's constituent in this matter, and I agree with him about the procedures of the House. He will be aware that the Bill was given a thorough hearing in the other place, where it began its life. It was then proposed that it should be sent to a Special Public Bill Committee in the other place, and that motion was discharged. The Bill was then considered by the whole House in the Moses Room. Every opportunity was available in the other place—a part of our institution—to give the Bill a thorough airing. Of course, the proceedings did not stop at Committee. They came to Report, when there were additional opportunities for Members—had they so wished—to table amendments.

Sir John Stanley: I am aware of the Bill's proceedings and the procedure in the other place. I make my point in relation to this Bill, but I believe it may have wider application. It is a desirable step that there should be a reasonable period between the selection of a Standing Committee and the commencement of the Committee proceedings for those outside the House to be able to contact members of the Committee, and for the members themselves to take a considered judgment as to whether they wish to table amendments at that stage. The House

will understand that I wish to bring my remarks to the attention of the Chairman of the Procedure Committee for consideration by that Committee.

Mr. John M. Taylor: By leave of the House, I had not intended to reply to the debate, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) has raised a point to which it would be discourteous of me not to respond. It is a matter of record that Lord Justice Saville's committee consulted very widely. However, not every representation won the day. Like my right hon. Friend's constituent, some were disappointed, but Lord Justice Saville's committee dwelt on the issues for more than a year. The total gestation period of the Bill has been no less than five years, including extensive consideration in the House of Lords.
I do not know whether it is seemly to refer to my right hon. Friend's constituent by name, but I should let him know that Mr. Sturgeon wrote to me. He made a number of points that I considered carefully and I replied to him at some length as to why we would not accept his proposals.
On a happier note and to bring my remarks to a conclusion, I omitted one name from the credits that I gave in support of the Bill. It was, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who worked closely as Parliamentary Secretary with the predecessor of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Having repaired that omission, I shall resume my seat.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

HEALTH

Ordered,

That Mr. Richard Spring be discharged from the Health Committee and Lady Olga Maitland be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Heron Line

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]

Sir Alan Haselhurst: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the future of the Heron line. I should point out straight away that the Heron line is a railway. I am glad that the Minister replying to the debate appreciates that fact, but not all those who made inquiries about the title of the debate appreciated that I was talking about a railway. Those who got nearest to the right answer thought it was a bus route, and others who were nowhere near it thought that it might have ornithological connections.
The Heron line is part of the network run by the West Anglia Great Northern railway company, or WAGN as it is somewhat inelegantly known. It is principally the service between Liverpool Street and Cambridge and it passes through my constituency. There are five stations in my constituency: Stansted Mountfitchet, Elsenham, Newport, Audley End and Great Chesterford. There is also the station at Stansted airport. Although its route uses most of the Heron line, it is now called the Stansted skytrain service, but it is very much part and parcel of the West Anglia section of the WAGN railway company.
I was disappointed that, in shaping the franchises, the opportunity was not taken to split West Anglia from Great Northern so that we would have had competing services from King's Cross to Cambridge and from Liverpool Street to Cambridge. It was one of the natural opportunities that arose for competition in the privatised railway, but it was decided otherwise. I shall not reopen that issue tonight. However, the decision to include both services to Cambridge within the same franchise has certain consequences.
I regard tonight's debate as timely as there are concerns in my constituency about the future of the Heron line and how it will fare as part of a railway franchise, as it is clear that the premier service to Cambridge is seen as the one that departs from King's Cross. There is now an excellent service—railway operators call it the Cambridge cruiser—that enables people to travel between the two cities in 52 minutes—a time that cannot be matched on the Heron line. So questions naturally arise in the minds of my constituents that, in the longer term, the stations on the Heron line will become less attractive to the railway operator. Of course they go on to think the worst. Therefore, I thought it might be useful to make a number of points ahead of the publication of the passenger service requirement for the franchise, and more particularly, the award of the franchise.
I should like to make a few points about the shape and scope of the franchise, mentioning the future impact of the Thameslink 2000 project—I am delighted that the Government have given approval to that project. It is of strategic importance to provide improved services north-south through the capital, but it seems that the possibility of making those additional north-south journeys will not be available until early in the next century—perhaps around 2002. Therefore, my first question is what length of franchise will be considered appropriate for WAGN, as the big question mark of Thameslink 2000 is hovering and that and other connected

franchises might be reconfigured in the light of Thameslink 2000. If, in order to keep options open, the franchising director goes for a short franchise for WAGN at the outset, the chances of certain improvements taking place in the service—to which I shall allude in a moment—seem somewhat reduced if it is envisaged that another franchise operator will take over once the Thameslink 2000 concept is realised.
My second consideration is whether trains operating on the Heron line from Cambridge through the stations in my constituency will have access to the Snow Hill tunnel which—according to the Thameslink project—allows trains to travel through London from north to south. Although there would have to be minor infrastructure changes to allow that physically to happen, it would seem that if it does not, there will be no opportunity to travel from Audley End to Guildford and Brighton on a direct train service, whereas that opportunity will be open to people travelling from Cambridge through the stations served by the line into King's Cross. That would further the impression that the Heron line is of less importance.
I recognise that the alternative opportunity for passengers on the Heron line was originally seen as the east-west link through London known as crossrail, but I do not have to remind my hon. Friend that there is doubt about the future of crossrail at the moment, so the opportunities for my constituents being able to travel directly through the tunnel into Liverpool street to the stations that were planned on the crossrail line seem somewhat diminished. Obviously, I hope that it will be possible to resurrect the crossrail project, but in the absence of that certainty, it appears that some of the advantages that will flow to passengers using the Cambridge-King's Cross service will not benefit passengers using the service through my constituency.
I hope that the franchising director will want to include in the franchise the potential of Stratford as an alternative terminus for trains. It will not be many years now before Stratford will provide an interconnection with the cross-channel rail services and with the Jubilee line, providing a faster connection to the west end. I certainly hope that the prospect of services to Stratford along the Heron line from Cambridge will be included.
To look further ahead, I wonder whether the franchise would be enhanced if the line between Ely and Peterborough were electrified. Those passengers wishing to travel to Peterborough and further on the east coast main line would benefit if there were a direct service that did not require them to change at Cambridge or Ely. I hope that such a suggestion might bolster the potential of the franchise.
The scope of that franchise should also include improvements to the infrastructure, particularly the signalling. I am not a technical expert on railway engineering by any stretch of the imagination, but the type and age of the signalling facilities south of Bishop's Stortford towards Liverpool Street is such that the newer types of rolling stock cannot use it. That is disappointing. If the Liverpool Street and the King's Cross services to Cambridge are included in the same franchise, that means that there cannot be commonality of rolling stock. It would be advantageous if the railway operator who wins the franchise were able to use his rolling stock on either line, as it suited him.
The system is inherently inflexible if one cannot use the same rolling stock on both lines. At the moment, perversely, the same rolling stock is used on both lines, but later this year the Great Northern line is due to switch to the new type 365 Networker trains. Surely that switch will offer a glaring example to my constituents of what the haves have in relation to the have-nots. The haves will enjoy faster services in new rolling stock, whereas the Heron line will still have 20-year-old rolling stock. That does not seem sensible. If there is a justification for having a combined franchise, one should take advantage of that and ensure that there is commonality of stock. That cannot be achieved unless the state of the signalling is attended to in the near future. I want to know whether that will be a condition of the franchise.
Such improvements would have the advantage of providing a diversionary route from Peterborough. If there were any difficulties on the Great Northern section of the east coast main line, it would be possible to run trains from Peterborough on electrified track all the way to Liverpool Street. That would also offer the further possibility of enlarging and enhancing the catchment area for employees of Stansted airport, because people would then be able to use a fast, reliable service to the airport from Peterborough.
Certain questions must be asked about the scope of the franchise. I should also like to comment on the quality of the service that my constituents may expect. They will be left with 20-year-old type 317 rolling stock. I hope that the franchising director will consider it important, whatever the length of the franchise he decides to award, bearing in mind the considerations that I have mentioned that may be in his mind, too, to promise at least refurbished rolling stock on that line. It would be unacceptable to continue to run unaltered 20-year-old rolling stock. It is daft not to hold out the promise of new rolling stock once it is possible for it to use the Heron line.
At the moment, it is galling to my constituents that some of the stations on the Heron line are closed on a Sunday—some are located in my constituency and others are south of it. The reason for that is that engineering works on the Great Northern line preclude a fast service from Cambridge on a Sunday. In order to provide a faster service, trains travel on the Heron line, but, to achieve that fast service, certain stations on that line are closed on a Sunday. People therefore cannot take advantage of those train services. That is not satisfactory and I hope that those Sunday services will be reconsidered as part of the franchise.
I must mention late-night services. It would be wrong to instance the needs of a Member of Parliament, trying to get away from this place at 10.15 pm, if he is lucky, who must catch either the 10.33 pm or the 11.33 pm. The gap between those services is lengthy, especially at Liverpool Street station, which may be beautiful to look at but is not beautiful to dwell in for a long time. There are just about 20 seats on the entire concourse at that station, so it is not an hospitable place late at night. If we are to encourage people to use the railway to come into London for an evening function, the cinema, the theatre, concerts or whatever, they must have the prospect of getting back home at a reasonable hour. The 10.33 pm train is a bit too early, and if they miss that they have an hour's wait. If people go out for a meal after an evening function they are not sure even that they can catch the

11.33 pm service. That does not encourage people to use the railways. I hope that late-night services will also be examined when the franchise is being considered.
I have already mentioned the possibility of links between Stansted airport and Peterborough. When the airport was opened, we went to great expense to build a spur northbound from the airport towards Cambridge, in addition to the southbound spur to carry passengers from London. It was thought sensible and useful to provide such a northbound spur, connected to the Heron line up to Cambridge. The service was run by the Regional Railways. I am afraid that in the early days of the airport, it did not attract many passengers and Regional Railways lost money. It decided to take advantage of regulations whereby it runs just one train a week—effectively no service.
There is a great interest in my constituency in seeing that service reinstated. I do not see why that should not be done by the franchise operator of the West Anglia Great Northern railway. That service should be examined when awarding that franchise. If we are to take the pressure for new housing off the rural part of my constituency and overcome the threat posed to it by urbanisation, it makes great sense to give people north of Stansted the opportunity to travel to work at that airport. I am thinking not just about passengers but about potential employees at the airport. Employment opportunities at the airport are growing steadily by the year. We should make use of the northbound spur, having gone to great expense to build it.
It is also important to consider the impact of the railway on airport employees from stations to the south of Stansted. The Stansted skytrain stops at Tottenham Hale and possibly one other station to provide the fastest possible service for airport passengers. What about the possibility of picking up employees at some other stations on the line? The pressure for new housing and the congestion on roads would be relieved if that service could scoop up more airport employees at those stations.
I have laid before my hon. Friend some of my concerns about the shape of the franchise, and what services it might include, and I have also put down some markers about what my constituents will be looking for, and are entitled to look for. I believe that some of those decisions should be thought through now and not put off until the next century. We should not award a franchise on certain assumptions and change them once Thameslink is operational or we have made a fresh decision on crossrail.
We should not perpetuate a situation in which my constituents are kept waiting, longer than they need, for the delivery of a better service with new rolling stock. They, too, should enjoy the benefits of privatisation that are already apparent from the franchises that have been awarded. Those benefits are the product of the Government's privatisation policy. I want my constituents to share that to the full and I have tried to outline the way in which that can best be done.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst) on initiating a debate on the future of the Heron line. As he said, the debate is timely. He and I have discussed the issues before, and I know that he is concerned that his constituents receive a high standard of passenger rail services.


I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work on the Transport Select Committee, where he has clearly demonstrated his commitment to see that the Government's railway policy is translated into benefits for passengers and taxpayers alike. My hon. Friend expressed the concern felt by some of the Heron line's customers in the West Anglia half of West Anglia Great Northern, who feel that they are the poor relations and fated always to see improvements on the Great Northern route that are not matched on their route.
The Government do not view any passengers as poor relations. Indeed, I note that almost half WAGN's passenger revenue comes from the Heron line and its branch lines. Furthermore, performance in terms of punctuality and reliability is very impressive. The performance consistently exceeds the passengers charter standards and it is marginally better than that of the Great Northern section of the franchise. Clearly, the line is an important and integral part of West Anglia Great Northern, and it is the intention of the train operating company and of the franchising director that it should remain so.
My hon. Friend has expressed concern on previous occasions that West Anglia Great Northern might be left at the tail end of the programme to franchise the 25 train operating companies. He has been keen to avoid any risk of the Heron line going into decline in the interim period, while its customers have to wait an unduly long time before enjoying the improvements from franchising already being seen elsewhere on the network.
There is no question of the current British Rail management retrenching on the Heron line pending franchising. I am glad to confirm that passengers on the Heron line and the other routes on WAGN will not now have long to wait until the benefits associated with franchising are introduced. The franchising programme is moving forward with increasing momentum. On 25 April, the franchising director issued an invitation to potential bidders to apply to pre-qualify to receive invitations to tender for WAGN and six other train operating companies.
I am pleased to see that, yet again, tremendous interest has been shown. A total of 91 applications have been received from 28 different organisations, with at least 10 applications for each company. The companies are bidding competitively for the right to operate the West Anglia Great Northern franchise. My hon. Friend can be assured that there will be a healthy competition for the right to run the services.
I understand that the draft passenger service requirement for WAGN is likely to be issued later this month and, as with previous PSRs, the appropriate local authorities and the rail users consultative committee will be consulted. Furthermore, I shall draw to the attention of the franchising director the views that my hon. Friend expressed this evening. Invitations to tender are likely to be issued later this summer and, on the experience of the franchises let to date, WAGN is likely to be transferred to the successful bidder by early next year.
I refer to the specific issues raised by my hon. Friend. In relation to the modernisation of infrastructure, Railtrack has carried out a series of measures in recent months to modernise infrastructure on the Heron line to

good effect. The results can be seen in the excellent performance in respect of punctuality and reliability—consistently above the passengers charter standards—of services on the Heron line. I understand that WAGN will shortly be discussing with Railtrack the potential for greater operational flexibility, which can be fully achieved only through upgrading the infrastructure.
My hon. Friend spoke of the interrelationship between Thameslink 2000 and WAGN. The Thameslink 2000 project, which is planned to commence operations in the year 2002, will enhance services on WAGN by linking stations such as Peterborough, Cambridge and King's Lynn with stations in the south, via central London. The Office of Passenger Rail Franchising will consult the Rail Regulator and other interested parties when determining the most appropriate service specification.
However, as Thameslink 2000 will operate from King's Cross-St. Pancras, it will not serve the Heron line, for which the terminus is Liverpool Street. There would have to be a new link across north London for that to be facilitated. If the operator believes that the demand is there for such a service, and if a commercial deal can be struck with Railtrack, that might be considered in the future. As my hon. Friend reminded the House, it will be some years before the additional capacity provided by Thameslink 2000 is available. It is a £600 million project and it will take some time to deliver.
My hon. Friend also referred to crossrail. Crossrail is expected to come after the Jubilee line extension, Thameslink 2000 and the channel tunnel rail link in the sequence of major new rail projects for London. That sequence of projects takes account of affordability and disruption—it is clearly not sensible to have too much upheaval at one time on London's transport system.
My hon. Friend referred to services to Cambridge. I am sure that the competition for the West Anglia Great Northern franchise will secure benefits for passengers served by the intermediate stations on the lines to Cambridge. The franchising director will be looking for the best deal, and he anticipates healthy competition for the service. In addition, the passenger service requirement will safeguard services to intermediate stations to Cambridge, as well as to Cambridge itself. My hon. Friend will be aware of the instruction to the franchising director, in comparing bids for franchises, to take account of those that offer service levels and enhancements over and above the levels that he specified.
I recognise the frustration that passengers on the Heron line must feel at having to use class 317 rolling stock, while passengers on Great Northern are served by new class 365 stock. Unfortunately, considerable work on infrastructure—such as the replacement of old-fashioned track circuits, platform lengthening and improvements to track and signalling—would be necessary before class 365s could use the Heron line.
I recognise that that has all been undertaken already on Great Northern, but a significant factor was that the line was also used by Eurostar services and the costs were shared with the international operator. The cost of similar work on the Heron line would be borne by WAGN alone. That is an important consideration to bear in mind. Any operator will have to think carefully before committing to such investment. However, if I may give some hope to my hon. Friend, some previous franchise awards have included commitments to refurbish existing rolling stock.


If the existing rolling stock on the Heron line is not replaced, it may be that potential bidders for WAGN will look hard at ways in which it can be improved for the benefit of passengers. A feature of virtually every franchise that has been let so far has been the commitment to new rolling stock or to substantial refurbishment.
WAGN originally cut back on Sunday stopping services on the Heron line in 1994, in a successful attempt to build on the tourist market—particularly passengers wanting to travel quickly from London to Cambridge. It is true that fast through services are now timetabled from King's Cross following improvements to that line. However, I understand that Railtrack needs to carry out even more extensive engineering work on Great Northern on Saturday evenings and Sunday mornings, to avoid disruption to weekday services. The only way to maintain the burgeoning tourist market is to maintain the Sunday through trains on the Heron line, but WAGN has promised to reassess the situation when the engineering work on Great Northern is complete. I am sure that it will have listened with interest to what my hon. Friend said this evening.
Matters such as late-night services can be addressed extremely well during consultation on the PSR if my hon. Friend, his constituents, local authorities and the rail users consultative committee are not satisfied with the level of service specified in the PSR.
Clearly, services to Stansted airport are important, particularly in the context of our overall transport policy, through which we wish to encourage people to travel to airports by rail rather than making them feel forced to use their cars. WAGN is currently working on proposals to enhance services to and from Stansted through the southern part of the Heron line by extending off-peak services from Liverpool Street to Bishop's Stortford.
As my hon. Friend said, such proposals would particularly benefit shift workers at the airport who use the Heron line. The proposals would be introduced in the May 1997 timetable, and WAGN will consult the local authority and rail user groups later this summer. In addition, along with BAA, Stansted Airport Ltd. and Essex and Cambridgeshire country councils, WAGN has commissioned a study looking at the feasibility of reintroducing services to and from Stansted to the north of the line. I understand that it expects to receive that report in the near future.
My hon. Friend also mentioned electrification of the Ely to Peterborough line. I understand that Railtrack and the local authorities have been looking at possible options for improving the Ely to Peterborough cross-country route

to accommodate more freight traffic to and from the port of Felixstowe. It will be a commercial matter for Railtrack and the new owners of Freightliner—the company that moves container freight via Felixstowe—to consider whether to pursue any of the available options. My hon. Friend will be aware that the new owners of Freightliner have explained that they have plans to increase their volume of business by 50 per cent. over the next five years.
In addition, the Felixstowe to Holyhead route is represented on the draft rail and combined transport trans-European networks maps. Therefore, any project that Railtrack wished to pursue on that route would in principle be eligible for assistance through the TENs programme. But it would, of course, be in competition with other projects for limited funding, both in this country and on the continent of Europe. My Department would give careful consideration to any such future bid from Railtrack, but Railtrack has not yet come forward with a bid for TENs funding for that route from this year's budget. Therefore, it is difficult to argue that there are firm proposals for developing that route which would justify categorising it as a TENs priority.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the potential for connections with Stratford station and the channel tunnel rail link. Clearly, the growth of docklands and the enhancement of services through the forthcoming Jubilee line extension might well make it feasible for WAGN to serve Stratford from the Heron line. I understand that it intends to keep its options open on that matter and to assess whether it becomes a viable option.
As my hon. Friend recognises, privatisation is about improving quality and taking advantage of commercial opportunities to enhance services. It is about establishing contractual safeguards that will guarantee the future of every line and station on the network. In the light of what we are seeing throughout the rail network as an increasingly large proportion is transferred to the private sector, I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend not only that the Heron line's future is safeguarded, but that its future under privatisation is in fact brighter than before. The persistence and eloquence with which my hon. Friend advances the case for better services on the line for his constituents and the detailed knowledge that he has of the services provided and the potential for new services will help to guide the beneficial development of services into the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Nine o'clock.